On 04/25/2012 11:00 AM, Frank Meier wrote: > Am 24.04.2012 17:53, schrieb pacemaker-requ...@oss.clusterlabs.org: > >> Message: 2 >> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:58:53 +0000 >> From: "Daugherity, Andrew W" <adaugher...@tamu.edu> >> To: "<pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org>" <pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org> >> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] LVM restarts after SLES upgrade >> Message-ID: <114ad516-3da6-43e1-8d15-f5d9d3eaa...@tamu.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:28 AM, <pacemaker-requ...@oss.clusterlabs.org> >> <pacemaker-requ...@oss.clusterlabs.org> wrote: >> >>> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:34:12 +0000 >>> From: emmanuel segura <emi2f...@gmail.com> >>> Message-ID: >>> <CAE7pJ3DGvkzMR1d9HNm76s8wtrAj0t1==31rnafhe-yegtv...@mail.gmail.com> >>> >>> Hello Frank >>> >>> Maybe this it's not the probelem, but i see this constrain wrong from >>> my point of view >>> ============================================================= >>> order o-Testclustervm inf: c-xen-vg-fs vm-clusterTest >>> order o-clvmglue-xenvgfs inf: c-clvm-glue c-xen-vg-fs >>> ============================================================= >>> to be >>> ============================================================= >>> order o-clvmglue-xenvgfs inf: c-clvm-glue c-xen-vg-fs >>> order o-Testclustervm inf: c-xen-vg-fs vm-clusterTest >>> ============================================================= >> >> How is that any different? Both sets of order constraints are identical, >> and look correct. Changing the order you add them in makes no difference, >> as the rules are evaluated as a set, and the crm shell will reorder them in >> alphabetical (ASCIIbetical, actually) order anyway. >> >> >>> 2012/4/24, Frank Meier <frank.me...@hr-group.de>: >>>> Every time the vgdisplay -v TestXenVG is hanging(ca.2min) >>>> >>>> I see two of this peocesses: >>>> /bin/sh /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d//heartbeat/LVM monitor >>>> /bin/sh /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d//heartbeat/LVM monitor >>>> is this OK, or have we a race condition? >> >> Frank, I see you have multipath in your LVM config. Have you tried it with >> multipath disabled? I wonder if this isn't a pacemaker/corosync problem but >> rather a lower-level storage problem. Still, whatever the cause, it doesn't >> fill me with confidence about upgrading to SLES 11 SP2... I guess it's time >> to bring up that test cluster I've been meaning to build. >> >> -Andrew >> > > Hi, > > yes, I've tested now without multipathd, but the problem exist furthermore.
You already found this thread? http://lists.linux-ha.org/pipermail/linux-ha/2011-November/044267.html .... there was also another discussion I can't find atm regarding possible tunings like i/o scheduler and lvm filter changes. Regards, Andreas -- Need help with Pacemaker? http://www.hastexo.com/now
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
