In this configuration ms_drbd_web-U is stacked resource(for backup purposes)
and it slave part must run only on dedicated host (can't migrate to other)
2011/6/27 Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM, ruslan usifov ruslan.usi...@gmail.com
wrote:
No, i mean that
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree l...@suse.de wrote:
On 2011-05-16T09:55:13, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote:
Couldn't both sides start shooting each other until one looses the token?
Not more than before, though I'd expect a side that freshly rebooted to
come
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:12 AM, patrickzoblis...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi All,
I currently have a 2-node Corosync+Pacemaker cluster configured with a
Shared IP (VIP). When the active node fails, the VIP swings to the passive
node and becomes active - this works very well so far.
Also - on
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Jamie L Sammons
jsamm...@cds-global.comwrote:
Hi Andrew,
I have seen the issue both on Pacemaker 1.0.9 and 1.1.5 on CentOS 5 using
the Clusterlabs repo.
Odd. Can you file a bug and attach a crm_report when using 1.1.5 please?
Thank you,
Jamie Sammons
Dnia Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:13:18 +1000
Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net napisał(a):
Hi
May I suggest:
rpm -qif /path/to/file
Debian and friends will presumably have some equivalent too :-)
Sure, they have ;]
dpkg -S /path/to/file
--
Pawel Warowny
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Hello
In the corosync log file i can find many lines like this:
Jun 27 10:38:41 amosn3 cib: [1842]: WARN: send_ipc_message: IPC Channel to 414
is not connected
Any idea what this means?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / with best regards
Christian Kulovits
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:42:46AM +0200, Kulovits Christian - OS ITSC wrote:
Hello
In the corosync log file i can find many lines like this:
Jun 27 10:38:41 amosn3 cib: [1842]: WARN: send_ipc_message: IPC Channel to
414 is not connected
Any idea what this means?
Probably the
On Monday, June 27, 2011 08:08:46 Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:42:46AM +0200, Kulovits Christian - OS ITSC
wrote:
Hello
In the corosync log file i can find many lines like this:
Jun 27 10:38:41 amosn3 cib: [1842]: WARN: send_ipc_message: IPC Channel
to
Hi
This message is written every 10 seconds on one node of a 4 node cluster. No
testing in progress, no fencing device defined.
Christian
-Original Message-
From: imnotpc [mailto:imno...@rock3d.net]
Sent: Montag, 27. Juni 2011 14:18
To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
Subject:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 08:17:38AM -0400, imnotpc wrote:
On Monday, June 27, 2011 08:08:46 Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:42:46AM +0200, Kulovits Christian - OS ITSC
wrote:
Hello
In the corosync log file i can find many lines like this:
Jun
Hello Dejan,
please, can you explain what process you mean?
Christian
-Original Message-
From: Dejan Muhamedagic [mailto:deja...@fastmail.fm]
Sent: Montag, 27. Juni 2011 14:44
To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] IPC Channel is not connected
Hi,
On Mon,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:27:52PM +0200, Kulovits Christian - OS ITSC wrote:
Hi
This message is written every 10 seconds on one node of a 4 node cluster. No
testing in progress, no fencing device defined.
Let me do a wild guess:
You are using DRBD MC.
This message is a side effect of
2011/6/26 Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Ciro Iriarte cyru...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'm running my first Corosync based cluster and I'm seeing
something odd (maybe I didn't get it right), Pacemaker tells me that
two nodes are present, but corosync gives me
Hi Lars,
Thank you for your answer. Yes I am using DRBD MC. And yes, if I close the MC
the message is not written any more. Thank You.
Christian
-Original Message-
From: Lars Ellenberg [mailto:lars.ellenb...@linbit.com]
Sent: Montag, 27. Juni 2011 16:26
To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
veghead sean@... writes:
Pair of LDAP servers running 389 (formerly Fedora DS) in
high availability using Pacemaker with a floating IP.
In addition, 389 supports multi-master replication,
where all changes on one node are automatically
replicated on one or more other nodes.
I'm so close,
On Monday, June 27, 2011 00:13:18 Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:10 AM, imnotpc imno...@rock3d.net wrote:
On Sunday, June 26, 2011 19:16:58 Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:37 AM, imnotpc imno...@rock3d.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 23:15:15 Andrew
Hi,
I searched the pacemaker mailing list archive but unable to find the
information (The closest thread that I can find is
http://www.mail-archive.com/pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org/msg08643.html)
I have setup a Linux cluster with Corosync/Pacemaker, and the two cluster
nodes are within the same
Hi all,
I'm pretty sure I bisected commit which breaks restart of (node local)
resources after definition change.
Nodes which has f59d7460bdde applied (v03-a and v03-b in my case) do not
restart such resources, while node without this commit (mgmt01) does.
Here is snippet from DC (grrr,
If you want to make your LDAP independent from IP just remove your
collocation:
colocation ldap-with-eip inf: elastic_ip ldap-clone
But I'd rather try to find out why monitoring for IP fails. May bet it just
needs an increased timeout on monitor operation, though it looks like you've
already
Sorry for the questions. Some days my brain is just slow. :)
Serge Dubrouski sergeyfd@... writes:
If you want to make your LDAP independent from IP just remove your
collocation:colocation ldap-with-eip inf: elastic_ip ldap-clone
Is that really what I want to do? I mean, I need the elastic ip
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:33 PM, veghead s...@studyblue.com wrote:
Sorry for the questions. Some days my brain is just slow. :)
Serge Dubrouski sergeyfd@... writes:
If you want to make your LDAP independent from IP just remove your
collocation:colocation ldap-with-eip inf: elastic_ip
Serge Dubrouski sergeyfd@... writes:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:33 PM, veghead sean at studyblue.com wrote:
If I remove the co-location, won't the elastic_ip resource just stay where it
is? Regardless of what happens to LDAP?
Right. That's why I think that you don't really want to do it. You
22 matches
Mail list logo
