On 12/13/2010 08:15 PM, Steven Dake wrote: > 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.
OK, so do I understand correctly that * "iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 5405" would trigger the issue, whereas * disabling both node's ports on the switch would not? Cheers, Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
