On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2011-05-16T09:55:13, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> >> Couldn't both sides start shooting each other until one looses the token?
>> >
>> > Not more than before, though I'd expect a side that freshly rebooted to
>> > come up w/o any token
On 2011-05-16T09:55:13, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >> Couldn't both sides start shooting each other until one looses the token?
> >
> > Not more than before, though I'd expect a side that freshly rebooted to
> > come up w/o any token.
> >
> > In general, the possibility for a fencing deathmatch is n
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2011-05-13T08:54:19, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> > No. Because starting/acquiring the resources would still depend on a
>> > "local" fence of the other side. This is protected against by our
>> > regular dependencies already.
>> >
>>
On 2011-05-13T08:54:19, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > No. Because starting/acquiring the resources would still depend on a
> > "local" fence of the other side. This is protected against by our
> > regular dependencies already.
> >
> > Or am I missing something still?
> Possibly.
> Couldn't both sides
Hi Andrew, Lars,
Thanks for the comments!
For the convenience of further development, before we reach the
consensus on the cib syntax, I temporarily implemented the syntax as the
following -- It's somewhat different from my previous idea. :-)
Please see also the attached patch which includes the
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2011-05-03T08:28:06, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> Sorry for the late reply. I missed that there actually was one open
> detail still.
>
>> >> Question though... what about no-quorum-policy=ignore ?
>> > That was implicit somewhere later
On 2011-04-29T03:33:00, "Gao,Yan" wrote:
> > Yes; a ticket section, just like that.
> All right. How about the schema:
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...
Makes sense to me.
> > Personally, I lean towards thi
On 2011-05-03T08:28:06, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
Sorry for the late reply. I missed that there actually was one open
detail still.
> >> Question though... what about no-quorum-policy=ignore ?
> > That was implicit somewhere later on, I think. The CTR must be able to
> > cope with multiple partition
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2011-04-29T10:32:25, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> With such a long email, assume agreement for anything I don't
>> explicitly complain about :-)
>
> Sorry :-) I'm actually trying to write this up into a somewhat more
> consistent docum
On 2011-04-29T10:32:25, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> With such a long email, assume agreement for anything I don't
> explicitly complain about :-)
Sorry :-) I'm actually trying to write this up into a somewhat more
consistent document just now, which turns out to be surprisingly hard
... Not that eas
On 2011-04-29T10:36:54, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > As I understood it we had essentially reached consensus in Boston that
> > CIB replication would best be achieved by a pair of complementary
> > resource agents. I don't think we had a name then, but I'll call them
> > Publisher and Subscriber for
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 2011-04-27 20:55, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>> On 2011-04-26T23:34:16, Yan Gao wrote:
>>> And the cibs between different sites would still be synchronized?
>>
>> The idea is that there would be - perhaps as part of the CTR daemon - a
>> pr
With such a long email, assume agreement for anything I don't
explicitly complain about :-)
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2011-04-26T23:34:16, Yan Gao wrote:
>
> Hi Yan,
>
> thanks for the good questions, let's get a discussion started!
>
>> >IntroductioN: At LP
Hi Lars,
Thanks for the explanation.
On 04/28/11 02:55, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2011-04-26T23:34:16, Yan Gao wrote:
>
> Perhaps chosing the name "token" for the cluster-wide attributes was not
> a wise move, as it does invoke the "token" association from
> corosync/totem.
>
> What do you
On 4/28/2011 at 11:06 PM, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 2011-04-27 20:55, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> > On 2011-04-26T23:34:16, Yan Gao wrote:
> >> And the cibs between different sites would still be synchronized?
> >
> > The idea is that there would be - perhaps as part of the CTR daemon - a
>
On 2011-04-27 20:55, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2011-04-26T23:34:16, Yan Gao wrote:
>> And the cibs between different sites would still be synchronized?
>
> The idea is that there would be - perhaps as part of the CTR daemon - a
> process that would replicate (manually triggered, periodically
On 2011-04-26T23:34:16, Yan Gao wrote:
Hi Yan,
thanks for the good questions, let's get a discussion started!
> >IntroductioN: At LPC 2010, we discussed (once more) that a key feature
> >for pacemaker in 2011 would be improved support for multi-site clusters;
> >by multi-site, we mean two (or m
Hi,
On 01/13/11 17:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
Hi all,
sorry for the delay in posting this.
And sorry for the delay in replying this :-) I have some questions about
this blow.
IntroductioN: At LPC 2010, we discussed (once more) that a key feature
for pacemaker in 2011 would be improved s
Hi all,
sorry for the delay in posting this.
IntroductioN: At LPC 2010, we discussed (once more) that a key feature
for pacemaker in 2011 would be improved support for multi-site clusters;
by multi-site, we mean two (or more) sites with a local cluster each,
and some higher level entity coordinat
19 matches
Mail list logo
