On 2013-04-02T17:02:01, David Vossel wrote:
> I'm convinced this useful.
>
> I'll add PCMK_MAX_CHILDREN to the sysconfig documentation. To be backwards
> compatible I'll have the lrmd internally interpret your LRMD_MAX_CHILDREN
> environment variable as well.
>
> sound reasonable?
Hi David,
Le 09/09/2013 17:34, Gopalakrishnan N a écrit :
Hi,
Any tutorial to install pacemaker with Apache Tomcat...
Regards,
Gopal
Yes, first setup a pacemaker cluster by following the guides (Cluster
from scratch) at http://clusterlabs.org/doc/
Then ask your eventual questions about managing a
On 11/09/2013, at 5:54 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-04-02T17:02:01, David Vossel wrote:
>
>> I'm convinced this useful.
>>
>> I'll add PCMK_MAX_CHILDREN to the sysconfig documentation. To be backwards
>> compatible I'll have the lrmd internally interpret your LRMD_MAX_CHILDREN
>
On 2013-09-11T19:55:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > sorry for being thick, but I can't find this in the code now. Did this
> > slip through again in April?
> Apparently. But before we add it, I'd like to see if we can do something
> coherent.
> Having 3 (or more) different variables (batch-limit,
- Original Message -
> From: "Lindsay Todd"
> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager"
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 3:18:17 PM
> Subject: [Pacemaker] asymmetric clusters, remote nodes, and monitor
> operations
>
> We've been attempting to set up an asymmetric pacemaker c
What I am seeing in the syslog are messages like:
Sep 11 13:19:52 db02 pacemaker_remoted[1736]: notice: operation_finished:
p-my
sql_monitor_2:19398:stderr [ 2013/09/11_13:19:52 INFO: MySQL monitor
succeed
ed ]
Sep 11 13:20:08 cvmh03 pengine[4832]: warning: unpack_rsc_op_failure:
Processin
It worked!! Thank you Andrew :D
Matías R. Cuenca del Rey
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Matias R. Cuenca del Rey <
mati...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Andrew,
>
> If I can't move instances of a clone. How can I do to rebalance my IP
> resource trough the three nodes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matía
On 11/09/2013, at 9:33 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-09-11T19:55:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> sorry for being thick, but I can't find this in the code now. Did this
>>> slip through again in April?
>> Apparently. But before we add it, I'd like to see if we can do something
>> coh
On 2013-09-12T14:34:02, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > Well, they're all doing something completely different.
> No, they're all crude approximations designed to stop the cluster as a whole
> from using up so much cpu/network/etc that recovery introduces more failures
> than it resolves.
OK. Though
