On 12/13/2010 12:08 AM, Florian Haas wrote: > On 12/07/2010 01:13 PM, Florian Haas wrote: >> Honza, Steve, >> >> do I understand correctly that this would trigger if, for example, a >> user had configured an iptables rule that blocked UDP port 5405? And if >> yes, would Corosync behave any differently when instead there is no >> _physical_ link between nodes on cluster startup? >>
Yes you can close your bug. This only effects the case where corosync can't even communicate with itself on the local node. This usually occurs because iptables are enabled incorrectly. It could also possibly happen when a nic fails. In either of those cases, corosync can now be terminated without a kill -9. Regards -steve >> Cheers, >> Florian >> >> On 2010-12-03 10:13, Jan Friesse wrote: >>> Committed as b9df4424b1ea91b98c98c208c295f4323be3204d >>> >>> Regards, >>> Honza > > Can I reiterate this question? I ask because I ran into this issue on > SLE 11 HAE, and would like to know if the bug that has been filed > against this can be closed. Thanks. > > Cheers, > Florian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openais mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
