On 2011-10-08 19:00, [email protected] wrote: > sry forgot that it is an english list..
It's also a list that doesn't munge the reply-to header. :) I'll assume you meant to continue the discussion publicly and thus I'm replying to the list; next time just remember to hit "Reply to All" or "Reply to List". Else, please clearly mark any personal message to me as "off-list". > here is my cibadmin > http://pastebin.com/021Ea2FP A couple of comments on that one: That CIB dump reflects a status where both nodes are online, the resource groups DB and ISCSI aren't running, and their corresponding DRBD master/slave sets have both instances in the Slave role. That status is neither expected from the configuration, nor from the promotion scores that Pacemaker has calculated. Given the CIB status, one would expect both groups to be running on HA-1, yet they are reported as being in the Stopped state. Can you guarantee that you did not produce this CIB dump in the middle of a cluster transition? In other words, are you sure you waited for the cluster to complete all the actions it was going to run, before you produced this dump? I ask because ptest run with your CIB dump as its input does say that Pacemaker is about to promote drbd-crs, drbd-crs-fail, and drbd-db on HA-1 next. In addition, the following location constraints are all redundant: location SecondaryNode-DB DB 0: HA-2.inta-peters.com location SecondaryNode-ISCSI ISCSI 0: HA-2.inta-peters.com location SecondaryNode-OBS OBS 0: HA-1.inta-peters.com location SecondaryNode-SMB SMB 0: HA-1.inta-peters.com 0 is the placement score that Pacemaker assigns to every node, for every resource, in a symmetric cluster by default. So you can just remove those lines from the configuration. Of the following constraints, the third is redundant: colocation ISCSI_on_crs inf: ISCSI master-drbd-crs:Master colocation ISCSI_on_crs_fail inf: ISCSI master-drbd-crs-fail:Master colocation crs-fail_on_crs inf: master-drbd-crs-fail:Master master-drbd-crs:Master There are a few other minor glitches in the configuration, however none of those (as far as I can see) should prevent the cluster from failing over properly. If you're certain that you were _not_ just being impatient, and Pacemaker does in fact _not_ promote those master/slave sets despite saying it's going to, then some additional information about your setup would be helpful. Specifically your distro (CentOS 5.7?) and your DRBD version. Cheers, Florian -- Need help with High Availability? http://www.hastexo.com/now _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
