On 12/13/2010 02:18 PM, Florian Haas wrote: > 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, >
yes > whereas > > * disabling both node's ports on the switch would not? > I am not certain on this second point, i am on the road atm, i'll give it a try and let you know tuesda. Regards -steve > 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
