Hi,
I have a question regarding ' 'op-status
attribute getting value 4.
In my case I have a strange behavior, when resources get those "monitor"
operation entries in the CIB with op-status=4, and they do not seem to be
called (exec-time=0).
What does 'op-status' = 4 mean?
I would appreciate som
On 2017-05-17 06:24, Lentes, Bernd wrote:
...
I'd like to know what the software is use is doing. Am i the only one having
that opinion ?
No.
How do you solve the problem of a deathmatch or killing the wrong node ?
*I* live dangerously with fencing disabled. But then my clusters only
r
Thank you, Ken!
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 05/05/2017 03:09 PM, Sergei Gerasenko wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a very simple question.
> >
> > Pacemaker uses a dedicated "multicast" interface for the totem protocol.
> > I'm using pacemaker with LVS to provide HA lo
On 05/17/2017 04:56 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> On 05/17/2017 11:28 AM, 井上 和徳 wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm testing Pacemaker-1.1.17-rc1.
>> The number of failures in "Too many failures (10) to fence" log does not
>> match the number of actual failures.
>
> Well it kind of does as after 10 failures it do
On 05/17/2017 03:33 PM, Lentes, Bernd wrote:
>
> - On May 17, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Klaus Wenninger kwenn...@redhat.com wrote:
>
>
>>> I don't see that.
>> fence_* are the RHCS-style fence-agents coming mainly from
>> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents.
>>
> Ah. Ok, i see that.
>
> Do you
- On May 17, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Klaus Wenninger kwenn...@redhat.com wrote:
>> I don't see that.
>
> fence_* are the RHCS-style fence-agents coming mainly from
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents.
>
Ah. Ok, i see that.
Do you know if they cooperate with a SuSE HAE ? I found rpm'
On 05/17/2017 02:52 PM, Lentes, Bernd wrote:
>
> - On May 17, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov bub...@hoster-ok.com
> wrote:
>
>> 08.05.2017 22:20, Lentes, Bernd wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i remember that digimer often campaigns for a fence delay in a 2-node
>>> cluster.
>>> E.g. here:
>>>
- On May 17, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov bub...@hoster-ok.com
wrote:
> 08.05.2017 22:20, Lentes, Bernd wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> i remember that digimer often campaigns for a fence delay in a 2-node
>> cluster.
>> E.g. here:
>> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2013-July/
On 05/17/2017 01:24 PM, Lentes, Bernd wrote:
>
> - On May 10, 2017, at 9:15 PM, Dimitri Maziuk dmaz...@bmrb.wisc.edu wrote:
>
>> On 05/10/2017 01:54 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2017 12:26 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
- fencing in 2-node clusters does not work reliably without fixed de
08.05.2017 22:20, Lentes, Bernd wrote:
Hi,
i remember that digimer often campaigns for a fence delay in a 2-node cluster.
E.g. here: http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2013-July/019228.html
In my eyes it makes sense, so i try to establish that. I have two HP servers,
each with an I
- On May 10, 2017, at 9:15 PM, Dimitri Maziuk dmaz...@bmrb.wisc.edu wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 01:54 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On 05/10/2017 12:26 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
>
>>> - fencing in 2-node clusters does not work reliably without fixed delay
>>
>> Not quite. Fixed delay allows a parti
On 05/17/2017 11:28 AM, 井上 和徳 wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm testing Pacemaker-1.1.17-rc1.
> The number of failures in "Too many failures (10) to fence" log does not
> match the number of actual failures.
Well it kind of does as after 10 failures it doesn't try fencing again
so that is what
failures stay at
Hi,
I'm testing Pacemaker-1.1.17-rc1.
The number of failures in "Too many failures (10) to fence" log does not match
the number of actual failures.
After the 11th time fence failure, "Too many failures (10) to fence" is output.
Incidentally, stonith-max-attempts has not been set, so it is 10 by d
13 matches
Mail list logo
