On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Nikola Ciprich
wrote:
>> well, I was using 1.1.3 for a while, but I reverted to 1.0 line for
>> stability reasons.
>> furthermore, from what andrew said, 1.1.4 needs newer glib2 which complicates
>> things for us conservative people even more :)
>> but if the bug
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
>> I'd build it as a parallel package, f.e. glib224, with includes in
>> /usr/include/glib-2.24 and .so symlinks in /usr/lib/glib-2.24. Thus
>> you'll have everything in directories (separate from a "main" glib2
>> package) which you should man
Well, the m/s shutdown ordering problem was of course caused
by mistake in configuration..
my order constrains looked like this:
order ord-drbd-sata0-dlm inf: ms-drbd-sata0:promote cl-dlm
instead of correct:
order ord-drbd-sata0-dlm inf: ms-drbd-sata0:promote cl-dlm:start
so if anybody has simil
> I'd build it as a parallel package, f.e. glib224, with includes in
> /usr/include/glib-2.24 and .so symlinks in /usr/lib/glib-2.24. Thus
> you'll have everything in directories (separate from a "main" glib2
> package) which you should manually supply to pacemaker during build, and
> all other pac
> well, I was using 1.1.3 for a while, but I reverted to 1.0 line for stability
> reasons.
> furthermore, from what andrew said, 1.1.4 needs newer glib2 which complicates
> things for us conservative people even more :)
> but if the bug is really fixed in 1.1.4, it could be possible to backport th
...
> well, I was using 1.1.3 for a while, but I reverted to 1.0 line for stability
> reasons.
> furthermore, from what andrew said, 1.1.4 needs newer glib2 which complicates
> things for us conservative people even more :)
I'd build it as a parallel package, f.e. glib224, with includes in
/usr/i
Hello Vladimir, thanks for the reply!
> Try 1.1.4, this was fixed (at least for me) after 1.1.3 - in
> http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/3d2a39c03666.
>
> Please note that downgrade back to 1.1.3 (if you fail with 1.1.4 for
> some reason) could be impossible without manual intervention.
31.10.2010 13:16, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
...
> Second problem worries me even more, it's been asked here by few other people
> already,
> but none of those seems to be my case..
> The problem is, that when some of the VM resources fails for some reason
> (startup fail,
> migration fail, whatever),
