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 \ >        

Re: [Pacemaker] failback off

2009-12-16 Thread E-Blokos
- 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

2009-10-15 Thread Andrew Beekhof
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

2009-10-14 Thread E-Blokos
- 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

2009-10-11 Thread Andrew Beekhof
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 > > ___

Re: [Pacemaker] failback

2009-06-08 Thread Andrew Beekhof
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

2009-06-08 Thread Димитър Бойн
: 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

2009-06-08 Thread Andrew Beekhof
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

2009-06-08 Thread Димитър Бойн
Hi, Check if you have something like 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: In object crm_config Best Regards! Boyn, Dimitar G. Tech