On 03/05/2013, at 12:32 AM, Andreas Hofmeister wrote:
> On 05/01/2013 10:49 PM, David Vossel wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you tested this with 1.1? There have been changes to how migration
>> works, some of which have to do with properly handling partial migrations.
>> I'd test this in 1.1.10.rc1 or
- Original Message -
> From: "Andreas Hofmeister"
> To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:32:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Pcmk migration logic and Libvirt migration behavior
>
> On 05/01/2013 10:49 PM, David Vossel wrote:
>
On 05/01/2013 10:49 PM, David Vossel wrote:
Have you tested this with 1.1? There have been changes to how migration works,
some of which have to do with properly handling partial migrations. I'd test this
in 1.1.10.rc1 or anything >= 1.1.8
No, we did not try with 1.1 yet.
The patches you
- Original Message -
> From: "Andreas Hofmeister"
> To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:14:20 AM
> Subject: [Pacemaker] Pcmk migration logic and Libvirt migration behavior
>
> Dear All,
>
> we currently investigate a prob
Dear All,
we currently investigate a problem where some Libvirt/KVM VM in a
pacemaker cluster ends up running on two nodes after being migrated.
The problem is triggered when a constraint is inserted that causes the
VM to be migrated away from its current node, but then the constraint is
rem
