Hi,
On 08/05/2025 19:14, Vicki Chen wrote:
Hi,
I'm a software developer currently researching how Corosync utilizes the Totem
protocol token. Corosync employs the Totem protocol to monitor the health of
cluster nodes by circulating a token among them. If a node doesn't receive the
token with
Hi,
I'm a software developer currently researching how Corosync utilizes the Totem
protocol token. Corosync employs the Totem protocol to monitor the health of
cluster nodes by circulating a token among them. If a node doesn't receive the
token within a specified timeout period (configured in c
Hi all,
As a reminder, Pacemaker 3.0.0 is planned to be released later this
year. There will be substantial changes to the C API.
We know the C API is used by booth, DLM, and sbd, and the goal is to
keep available all APIs used by those projects. All other APIs are fair
game to change or remove.
Hi all,
This week, I plan to release Pacemaker 2.1.8-rc1 and create a 3.0
branch. 3.0.0 is expected later this year.
Pacemaker pull request policies are changing slightly. Before, we had a
different policy during the release cycle compared to normal times.
Now, the policy will stay the same all t
On Fri, 2023-06-09 at 08:14 +, Golding, Adrian (Senior Database
Engineer) via Developers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to ask how I get approach a documentation enhancement
> for the "oralsnr" pacemaker script.
Hi Adrian,
That is part of the resource-agents project. You can file a pull
requ
Hi,
I would like to ask how I get approach a documentation enhancement for the
"oralsnr" pacemaker script.
I won't explain here as I'm not sure I am emailing the correct address but am
happy to explain if I get a response to this.
Cheers,
Adrian.
Adrian Golding
Senior Database Engineer
Techno
On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 09:37 -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do think the idea is good. I've commented on the pull request with
> some technical issues. It would be an API compatibility break, but
> coincidentally I'm planning such a break for a release at the end of
> this year, so that time
Hi,
I do think the idea is good. I've commented on the pull request with
some technical issues. It would be an API compatibility break, but
coincidentally I'm planning such a break for a release at the end of
this year, so that time frame could work.
What situation were you running into that this
Hello, I'm Lyamin Vladimir. First-year master of St. Petersburg State
University. I decided to optimize the running time of the
pcmk__unpack_constraints function, since there is a loop over all the data
here. I decided to use a hash table to optimize this.
A hash table structure has been added, as
Could you write to me if I can continue to work in this direction?
сб, 7 янв. 2023 г. в 23:41, Владимир Лямин :
> Hello, I'm Lyamin Vladimir. First-year master of St. Petersburg State
> University. I decided to optimize the running time of the
> pcmk__unpack_constraints function, since there is a
Is there a way to have pacemaker resource groups failover if all floating IP
resources are unavailable?
I want to have multiple floating IPs in a resource group that will only
failover if all IPs cannot work. Each floating IP is on a different subnet and
can be used by the application I hav
Hi all,
I'm writing about an issue we have received from a pacemaker user about RA
timeout.
Some users have encountered a timeout from RA script/program and this led to a
major outage for them.
Typical of these types of cases, there is no additional useful information to
explain why this happen
On 5/31/21 10:53 AM, Emil Penchev wrote:
Hi all,
I'm writing about an issue we have received from a pacemaker user
about RA timeout.
Some users have encountered a timeout from RA script/program and this
led to a major outage for them.
Typical of these types of cases, there is no additional use
Hi all,
Now that we've started the 2.1.0 release cycle, our usual change in
pull request policy applies:
Pull requests with new features should continue to be submitted against
the master branch. Pull requests with only bug fixes should be
submitted against the 2.1 branch if they are intended for
Hi all,
As announced on the us...@clusterlabs.org list, an ACL bypass
vulnerability was found in Pacemaker. The 1.1, 2.0, and master branches
will all have fixes merged today.
In case anyone is building the 2.0.3 or 2.0.4 releases, I've attached
patches here for those points in the code base.
--
On 10/21/2020 7:25 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
Maybe we should wait until github finishes putting its plans in place.
Especially if we want to do all projects at once, there's no need to
tie it to a particular Pacemaker release.
Right, I don´t see any reason to tie releases with branch changes.
L
Maybe we should wait until github finishes putting its plans in place.
Especially if we want to do all projects at once, there's no need to
tie it to a particular Pacemaker release.
On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 06:10 +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2020 7:26 PM, Andrew Price wrote:
> > [CC+
On 10/20/2020 7:26 PM, Andrew Price wrote:
[CC+ cluster-devel]
On 19/10/2020 23:59, Ken Gaillot wrote:
On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 07:19 +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
Hi Ken,
On 10/2/2020 8:02 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 2020-10-02 1:12 p.m., Ken Gaillot wrote:
Hi all,
I sent a message to the us..
[CC+ cluster-devel]
On 19/10/2020 23:59, Ken Gaillot wrote:
On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 07:19 +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
Hi Ken,
On 10/2/2020 8:02 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 2020-10-02 1:12 p.m., Ken Gaillot wrote:
Hi all,
I sent a message to the us...@clusterlabs.org list about
releasing
Pacemak
On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 07:19 +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> On 10/2/2020 8:02 PM, Digimer wrote:
> > On 2020-10-02 1:12 p.m., Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I sent a message to the us...@clusterlabs.org list about
> > > releasing
> > > Pacemaker 2.1.0 next year.
> > >
Hi all,
Now that we've started the 2.0.5 release cycle, our usual change in
pull request policy applies:
Pull requests with new features should continue to be submitted against
the master branch. Pull requests with only bug fixes should be
submitted against the 2.0 branch if they are intended for
Hi Ken,
On 10/2/2020 8:02 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 2020-10-02 1:12 p.m., Ken Gaillot wrote:
Hi all,
I sent a message to the us...@clusterlabs.org list about releasing
Pacemaker 2.1.0 next year.
Coincidentally, there is a plan in the git and Github communities to
change the default git branch fro
On 2020-10-02 1:12 p.m., Ken Gaillot wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I sent a message to the us...@clusterlabs.org list about releasing
> Pacemaker 2.1.0 next year.
>
> Coincidentally, there is a plan in the git and Github communities to
> change the default git branch from "master" to "main":
>
> https:/
Hi all,
I sent a message to the us...@clusterlabs.org list about releasing
Pacemaker 2.1.0 next year.
Coincidentally, there is a plan in the git and Github communities to
change the default git branch from "master" to "main":
https://github.com/github/renaming
The rationale for the change is n
Hi,
I came across below error when I ran through below code.
Environment: On NODE1 (SQL Server 2019 running in Amazon Linux 2- OS, create a
resource using aws-vpc-move-ip resource agent." in Pacemaker.
Error:
invalid resource option 'routing_table_role', allowed options are:
awscli, interface, i
Hi,
Please repost this on the us...@clusterlabs.org list, which will get
more relevant replies. This list discusses the development of cluster
software code.
On Thu, 2020-08-27 at 12:47 +, Kumar, Aswini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I came across below error when I ran through below code.
>
> Environ
On Mon, 2020-07-06 at 14:27 +, Denis Koptev wrote:
> Hello!
>
> My team uses Pacemaker as a cluster manager. Our configuration is
> large enough, therefore we have lots of resources and constraints for
> them.
> While using Pacemaker we noticed that its decision making algorithm
> works slow
Hi all,
Now that we've started the 2.0.4 release cycle, our usual change in
pull request policy applies:
Pull requests with new features should continue to be submitted against
the master branch. Pull requests with only bug fixes should be
submitted against the 2.0 branch if they are intended for
Hi all,
Now that we've started the 2.0.3 release cycle, our usual change in
pull request policy applies:
Pull requests with new features should continue to be submitted against
the master branch. Pull requests with only bug fixes should be
submitted against the 2.0 branch if they are intended for
Gentle Reminder!!
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:14 PM Rohit Saini
wrote:
> Gentle Reminder!!
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:10 PM Rohit Saini <
> rohitsaini111.fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I know pacemaker booth is being used for geographical redundancy.
>> Currently I am using pacemak
Gentle Reminder!!
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:10 PM Rohit Saini
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I know pacemaker booth is being used for geographical redundancy.
> Currently I am using pacemaker/corosync for my local two-node redundancy.
> As I understand, booth needs atleast 3 nodes to work correctly to do
Hi All,
I know pacemaker booth is being used for geographical redundancy. Currently
I am using pacemaker/corosync for my local two-node redundancy.
As I understand, booth needs atleast 3 nodes to work correctly to do the
automatic failovers. So it does not fit my requirements.
Few queries are
1)
It seems extraneous to carry results of *.y files processing the
tree (and hence in what we call distribution tarballs at the time).
Hence the simple question, are you OK with bison (not yacc, even
though the compatibility fix appears to be a sed oneliner) becoming
a new dependency?
It's also not
Since 2.0.2 is primarily a security release, all pull requests should
continue to be submitted against the master branch, with the exception
of fixes for regressions introduced in 2.0.2.
I'm hoping to minimize the number of release candidates and release the
final in about a month.
--
Ken Gaillot
On 20/01/19 12:44 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> On 18/01/19 20:32 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>> It was discovered that this release of glib project changed sligthly
>> some parameters of how distribution of values within hash tables
>> structures work, undermining pacemaker's hard (alas unfeasible) a
On 18/01/19 20:32 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> It was discovered that this release of glib project changed sligthly
> some parameters of how distribution of values within hash tables
> structures work, undermining pacemaker's hard (alas unfeasible) attempt
> to turn this data type into fully predic
This will be of interest to anyone who works on the pacemaker code
base, or who develops tools for use with Pacemaker.
In Pacemaker 2.0.0-rc3, many of the file and directory names in the
code base have been renamed to follow the daemon renaming. pacemakerd
keeps its name. The other daemons have be
Now that we're done with the 1.1.18 release cycle, and starting
development on 2.0.0, the pull request policy will be a bit different
than usual:
- Bug fixes and new features should be submitted against the master
branch. Most of these will not be released until 2.0.1.
- There is now a 2.0 branch
Reminder: now that we're in the Pacemaker release candidate phase,
please submit any pull requests with bug fixes against the 1.1 branch,
to make sure they are included in the final 1.1.18 release.
Pull requests with new features should still be submitted against the
master branch. Since I'd like
Reminder: now that we're in the Pacemaker release candidate phase,
please submit any pull requests with bug fixes against the 1.1 branch,
to make sure they are included in the final 1.1.17 release.
Pull requests with new features should still be submitted against the
master branch, and will be inc
On 05/26/2016 03:17 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here is a list of issues found during testing of a setup with 2 cluster
> nodes, 8 remote nodes and around 450 resources. I hope it could be
> useful to do some polishing before 1.1.15 release. pacemaker version is
> quite close to 1.
Hi all,
here is a list of issues found during testing of a setup with 2 cluster
nodes, 8 remote nodes and around 450 resources. I hope it could be
useful to do some polishing before 1.1.15 release. pacemaker version is
quite close to 1.1.15-rc1
* templates are not supported for ocf:pacemaker
FWIW, this is probably more suited to the users list
> On 13 Aug 2015, at 11:09 pm, Nekrasov, Alexander
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a dependency tree starting with PgsqlShared as root, and two sub trees:
> 1. PgsqlShared->apache->apl->c4fastvpa (i.e. apache has an AFTER
> constrain o
Hello,
I have a dependency tree starting with PgsqlShared as root, and two sub trees:
1. PgsqlShared->apache->apl->c4fastvpa (i.e. apache has an AFTER constrain
on PgsqlShared, etc.)
2. PgsqlShared->iproute
With the version on Pacemaker that came with SLES11, the starting was done in
44 matches
Mail list logo
