Re: [Pacemaker] Failback problem with active/active cluster

Ho, On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:38:08PM +, Robert Schumann wrote: > Charles KOPROWSKI writes: > > > > > Le 14/03/2011 09:43, Andrew Beekhof a écrit : > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote: > > >> 11.03.2011 16:27, Andrew Beekhof: > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at

Re: [Pacemaker] Failback problem with active/active cluster

Charles KOPROWSKI writes: > > Le 14/03/2011 09:43, Andrew Beekhof a écrit : > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote: > >> 11.03.2011 16:27, Andrew Beekhof: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Charles KOPROWSKI > >>> wrote: > >>> > Is there any possibility to mov

Re: [Pacemaker] Failback problem with active/active cluster

Le 14/03/2011 09:43, Andrew Beekhof a écrit : On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote: 11.03.2011 16:27, Andrew Beekhof: On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Charles KOPROWSKI wrote: Is there any possibility to move back manualy a part of the ClusterIP resource (for example Clust

Re: [Pacemaker] Failback problem with active/active cluster

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote: > 11.03.2011 16:27, Andrew Beekhof: >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Charles KOPROWSKI >>  wrote: >> >>> Is there any possibility to move back manualy a part of the ClusterIP >>> resource (for example ClusterIP:1) to the other node ? Or i

Re: [Pacemaker] Failback problem with active/active cluster

11.03.2011 16:27, Andrew Beekhof: On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Charles KOPROWSKI wrote: Is there any possibility to move back manualy a part of the ClusterIP resource (for example ClusterIP:1) to the other node ? Or is it just impossible with this version ? I _think_ its impossible - whic

Re: [Pacemaker] Failback problem with active/active cluster

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Charles KOPROWSKI wrote: > Le 11/03/2011 11:47, Andrew Beekhof a écrit : >> Essentially you have encountered a limitation in the allocation >> algorithm for clones in 1.0.x >> The recently released 1.1.5 has the behavior you're looking for, but >> the patch is far

Re: [Pacemaker] Failback problem with active/active cluster

Le 11/03/2011 11:47, Andrew Beekhof a écrit : On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Charles KOPROWSKI wrote: Hello, I set up a 2 nodes cluster (active/active) to build an http reverse proxy/firewall. There is one vip shared by both nodes and an apache instance running on each node. Here is the con

Re: [Pacemaker] Failback problem with active/active cluster

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Charles KOPROWSKI wrote: > Hello, > > I set up a 2 nodes cluster (active/active) to build an http reverse > proxy/firewall. There is one vip shared by both nodes and an apache instance > running on each node. > > Here is the configuration : > > node lpa \ >        

[Pacemaker] Failback problem with active/active cluster

Hello, I set up a 2 nodes cluster (active/active) to build an http reverse proxy/firewall. There is one vip shared by both nodes and an apache instance running on each node. Here is the configuration : node lpa \ attributes standby="off" node lpb \ attributes standby="off" pr

Re: [Pacemaker] failback off

- Original Message - From: "Andrew Beekhof" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] failback off On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM, E-Blokos wrote: - Original Message - From: "Andrew Beekhof" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, O

Re: [Pacemaker] failback off

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM, E-Blokos wrote: > > - Original Message - From: "Andrew Beekhof" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 4:04 PM > Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] failback off > > >> Should be.  Did you try it? >> >

Re: [Pacemaker] failback off

- Original Message - From: "Andrew Beekhof" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] failback off Should be. Did you try it? On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM, E-Blokos wrote: Hi, Is it possible to have a resource-stickiness in clone or

Re: [Pacemaker] failback off

Should be. Did you try it? On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM, E-Blokos wrote: > Hi, > > Is it possible to have a resource-stickiness in clone or group > meta-attribute ? > I'd like to keep the state of resource location even after a failback > > Thanks > > Franck Chionna > > ___

[Pacemaker] failback off

Hi, Is it possible to have a resource-stickiness in clone or group meta-attribute ? I'd like to keep the state of resource location even after a failback Thanks Franck Chionna ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.c

Re: [Pacemaker] failback

2009/6/9 Димитър Бойн : > Thanks Andrew! > > Why even allow "-INFINITY" then > Shouldn't we hard limit in the code the "stickiness" to ">=0" then ? -INFINITY makes more sense in other contexts, and is great for exercising the cluster :-) ___ Pacemaker m

Re: [Pacemaker] failback

: pacema...@clusterlabs.org Cc: pacema...@clusterlabs.org Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] failback 2009/6/8 Димитър Бойн : > Hi, > > Check if you have something like > > value="INFINITY"/> > > In your current > > Or similar setting by resources. > > > > The ability

Re: [Pacemaker] failback

2009/6/8 Димитър Бойн : > Hi, > > Check if you have something like > > value="INFINITY"/> > > In your current > > Or similar setting by resources. > > > > The ability to set resource stickiness controls the "fail back on recovery". > > > > If you want your resources to failback on default set: >

Re: [Pacemaker] failback

fos E-Blokos [mailto:in...@e-blokos.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:22 PM To: pacema...@clusterlabs.org Subject: [Pacemaker] failback Hi, I configured a clone for 4 nodes with inside a group of 30 ipaddr2 resources. when I reboot a node the group resources are taken by another node but

[Pacemaker] failback

Hi, I configured a clone for 4 nodes with inside a group of 30 ipaddr2 resources. when I reboot a node the group resources are taken by another node but the once the rebooted node the failed node resources don't go back. What the settings to do it right ? THanks Franck Chionna -- This message h