Il 17/06/2014 16:32, Digimer ha scritto:
On 17/06/14 10:23 AM, Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Digimer [mailto:li...@alteeve.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:20 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Question about clustering
On 6/18/2014 9:32 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Ok, fencing is a requirement for a cluster for hardware failure.
I've another question about this arg, but for software failure.
Supposing to have a cluster of httpd installation on 6 virtualized
hosts, each one on a different server. Suppose also
On 18/06/14 12:32 PM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Ok, fencing is a requirement for a cluster for hardware failure.
I've another question about this arg, but for software failure.
Supposing to have a cluster of httpd installation on 6 virtualized
hosts, each one on a different server. Suppose also
Digimer wrote:
On 18/06/14 12:32 PM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Ok, fencing is a requirement for a cluster for hardware failure.
I've another question about this arg, but for software failure.
Supposing to have a cluster of httpd installation on 6 virtualized
hosts, each one on a different
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Digimer wrote:
On 18/06/14 12:32 PM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Ok, fencing is a requirement for a cluster for hardware failure.
I've another question about this arg, but for software failure.
Supposing to have a cluster of httpd
-Original Message-
From: Digimer [mailto:li...@alteeve.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:20 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Question about clustering
On 16/06/14 02:55 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
SNIP
One can also set the cluster nodes to failover, and when
On 17/06/14 10:23 AM, Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Digimer [mailto:li...@alteeve.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:20 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Question about clustering
On 16/06/14 02:55 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us
Hi Digimer,
there is a chance to make fencing without hardware, but only software?
Il 15/06/2014 17:28, Digimer ha scritto:
On 15/06/14 08:54 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Another question is about fencing. I've ridden that a cluster must have
fencing to be considered as such. On CentOS 6.5
No. For fencing to be worthwhile, it *must* work when the node is in any
state. For this, it must be independent of node. A great way to see why
is to test crashing the node (echo c /proc/sysrq-trigger) or simply
cutting the power to the node. With the node totally disabled, the
surviving
On 6/16/2014 2:39 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Hi Digimer,
there is a chance to make fencing without hardware, but only software?
the most common fence in TCP connected systems is to disable the
ethernet ports of the fenced system, done via a 'smart ethernet
switch'. if you're using shared
On 16/06/14 01:36 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 6/16/2014 2:39 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Hi Digimer,
there is a chance to make fencing without hardware, but only software?
the most common fence in TCP connected systems is to disable the
ethernet ports of the fenced system, done via a 'smart
On 6/16/2014 10:55 AM, Digimer wrote:
The main downside to fabric fencing is that the failed node will have no
chance of recovering without human intervention. Further, it places the
onus on the admin to not simply unfence the node without first doing
proper cleanup/recovery. For these
On 16/06/14 02:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 6/16/2014 10:55 AM, Digimer wrote:
The main downside to fabric fencing is that the failed node will have no
chance of recovering without human intervention. Further, it places the
onus on the admin to not simply unfence the node without first doing
Digimer wrote:
On 16/06/14 02:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 6/16/2014 10:55 AM, Digimer wrote:
The main downside to fabric fencing is that the failed node will have
no
chance of recovering without human intervention. Further, it places the
onus on the admin to not simply unfence the node
On 16/06/14 02:55 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Digimer wrote:
On 16/06/14 02:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 6/16/2014 10:55 AM, Digimer wrote:
The main downside to fabric fencing is that the failed node will have
no
chance of recovering without human intervention. Further, it places the
onus
Hi list,
I'm new to clustering, and I'm running a little cluster@home. The
cluster is running on a workstation hardware and running on Centos 6.5.
Component: corosync, pacemaker, drbd and pcs. All works good.
This cluster has different resources:
1) drbd0
2) drbd1
3) drbd0_fs
4) drbd1_fs
5)
On 15/06/14 08:54 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Another question is about fencing. I've ridden that a cluster must have
fencing to be considered as such. On CentOS 6.5 there is stonith that
concerns node level fencing. For this type of fencing I must have ilo,
ilom, drac, and other. It's
17 matches
Mail list logo
