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

2011-03-21 Thread Dejan Muhamedagic
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

2011-03-18 Thread Robert Schumann
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

2011-03-14 Thread Charles KOPROWSKI
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

2011-03-14 Thread Andrew Beekhof
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

2011-03-12 Thread Pavel Levshin
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

2011-03-11 Thread Andrew Beekhof
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

2011-03-11 Thread Charles KOPROWSKI
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

2011-03-11 Thread Andrew Beekhof
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 \ >