On 22 Jan 2014, at 10:54 am, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 14:49 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> What crm_mon are you looking at?
>> I see stuff like:
>>
>> virt-fencing (stonith:fence_xvm):Started rhos4-node3
>> Resource Group: mysql-group
>> mysql-vip
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 14:49 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> What crm_mon are you looking at?
> I see stuff like:
>
> virt-fencing (stonith:fence_xvm):Started rhos4-node3
> Resource Group: mysql-group
> mysql-vip(ocf::heartbeat:IPaddr2): Started rhos4-node3
> mysql
On 16 Jan 2014, at 1:13 pm, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 08:35 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> I know, I was giving you another example of when the cib is not completely
>> up-to-date with reality.
>
> Yeah, I understood that. I was just countering with why tha
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 08:35 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> I know, I was giving you another example of when the cib is not completely
> up-to-date with reality.
Yeah, I understood that. I was just countering with why that example is
actually more acceptable.
> It may very well be partially s
On 16 Jan 2014, at 6:53 am, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 17:11 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> Consider any long running action, such as starting a database.
>> We do not update the CIB until after actions have completed, so there can
>> and will be times when th
On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 17:11 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> Consider any long running action, such as starting a database.
> We do not update the CIB until after actions have completed, so there can and
> will be times when the status section is out of date to one degree or another.
But that is
On 14 Jan 2014, at 11:50 pm, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 16:01 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 08:09 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
The local cib hasn't caught up yet by the looks of it.
>
> I should have asked in my previous mess
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 16:01 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 08:09 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >>
> >> The local cib hasn't caught up yet by the looks of it.
I should have asked in my previous message: is this entirely an artifact
of having just restarted or are there
On 14 Jan 2014, at 3:41 pm, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 08:09 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> The local cib hasn't caught up yet by the looks of it.
>
> Should crm_resource actually be [mis-]reporting as if it were
> knowledgeable when it's not though? IOW is t
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 08:09 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> The local cib hasn't caught up yet by the looks of it.
Should crm_resource actually be [mis-]reporting as if it were
knowledgeable when it's not though? IOW is this expected behaviour or
should it be considered a bug? Should I open a
On 14 Jan 2014, at 5:13 am, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found a situation using pacemaker 1.1.10 on RHEL6.5 where the output
> of "crm_resource -L" is not trust-able, shortly after a node is booted.
>
> Here is the output from crm_resource -L on one of the nodes in a two
> nod
Hi,
I found a situation using pacemaker 1.1.10 on RHEL6.5 where the output
of "crm_resource -L" is not trust-able, shortly after a node is booted.
Here is the output from crm_resource -L on one of the nodes in a two
node cluster (the one that was not rebooted):
st-fencing (stonith:fence_foo
12 matches
Mail list logo
