On 18/10/14 12:18 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
В Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:27:49 -0400
Digimer пишет:
On 06/10/14 02:11 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Digimer wrote:
If stonith was configured, after the time out, the first node would fence
the second node ("unable to r
В Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:27:49 -0400
Digimer пишет:
> On 06/10/14 02:11 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Digimer wrote:
> >> If stonith was configured, after the time out, the first node would fence
> >> the second node ("unable to reach" != "off").
> >>
> >> Alternat
On 06/10/14 02:11 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Digimer wrote:
If stonith was configured, after the time out, the first node would fence
the second node ("unable to reach" != "off").
Alternatively, you can set corosync to 'wait_for_all' and have the first
node do
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Digimer wrote:
> If stonith was configured, after the time out, the first node would fence
> the second node ("unable to reach" != "off").
>
> Alternatively, you can set corosync to 'wait_for_all' and have the first
> node do nothing until it sees the peer.
>
Am I
If stonith was configured, after the time out, the first node would
fence the second node ("unable to reach" != "off").
Alternatively, you can set corosync to 'wait_for_all' and have the first
node do nothing until it sees the peer.
To do otherwise would be to risk a split-brain. Each node ne
Hi all,
I had this question from a while, did not understand the logic for it.
Why should I have to start pacemaker simultaneously on both of my nodes (of a 2
node cluster) simultaneously, although I have disabled quorum in the cluster.
It fails in the startup step of
[root@rk16 ~]# service pace
