> > sorry but I don't fully understand : > > > > ?- I don't think there is any "fencing" functionnality in the OCFS2 > > management, > > > there is suicide, but that is unrelated to my point > Ok I didn't not know, but this could not be disturbing for Pacemaker , could it ? It's quite as if one node crashes for another reason, from Pacemaker point of view ... > >> > ? so for me the membership information remains only at >> > Pacemaker/corosync level. >> > > no, ocfs2 also has its own notion of who its peers are - how else does > it know who to talk to. > > Yes I know that, it is set in the /etc/ocfs2/cluster.conf, but if one node crashes or if Pacemaker decides to fence a node, then the ocfs2 cluster knows via its own heartbeat that the peer node is no more alive, again I'm sorry but I don't understand where is exactly the problem ... I don't mean there is not a problem, but I don't catch it ...
? Thanks Alain >> > >> > - I want all the FS OCFS2 always mounted on both sides , so from Pacemaker >> > ?point of view, I think that it is like any other File System type >> > (thanks to OCF >> > ?script Filesystem), except that I configure a clone FS, just to be >> > able to configure >> > ?colocation for other primitives on theses clone-FS >> > >> > - and so, if one side fails, the clone FS ocfs2 are Stopped on this side >> > but >> > ?remain started on the other side. >> > >> > So where, in this configuration, is exactly hidden the problem that you >> > mention ? _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
