Re: [Linux-HA] Watchdog configuration with SBD

2008-09-08 Thread NAKAHIRA Kazutomo
Hi, Lars Thank you for your advice. I decided to use the sbd command with "-W" option to enable watchdog. It operates well when starting from the command line. But, I encountered other problem when sbd watch process is started by Heartbeat using respawn directive in ha.cf. Start Heartbeat and

RE: [Linux-HA] the maximum message size which bcast can handle

2008-09-08 Thread Junko IKEDA
> > > > it, because the max size for sendto() is 64kbyte. > > > > 256kbyte message should be split into pieces before sending as packet. > > > > by the way, I set "bcast" in ha.cf as media. > > > I assume you're working on a patch for this? > > That means, heartbeat doesn't care for 256kB message b

Re: [Linux-HA] Using Heartbeat with aliased IPs

2008-09-08 Thread David Lang
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Darren Mansell wrote: Hello. I'm trying to implement HA into some web servers, which are running Tomcat. Due to SSL shortcomings we have to use 1 IP address per web site and can't virtualhost. This means on each web server we have around 20 aliased IP's so we can run around

[Linux-HA] Settingup Active/Passive Cluster

2008-09-08 Thread Jill Schaumloeffel
I am setting up my first active/passive cluster. Here are "just the facts, ma'am": 2 SLES 10 SP2 servers External iSCSI, shared drive running EVMS Have a private container, /dev/evms/sxcontainer with an LV on it /dev/evms/sxcontainer/scalix Need for only one server to mount & access the shared

[Linux-HA] Using Heartbeat with aliased IPs

2008-09-08 Thread Darren Mansell
Hello. I'm trying to implement HA into some web servers, which are running Tomcat. Due to SSL shortcomings we have to use 1 IP address per web site and can't virtualhost. This means on each web server we have around 20 aliased IP's so we can run around 20 instances of Tomcat all bound to their ow

Re: [Linux-HA] Problem with connectivity loss

2008-09-08 Thread Chase Simms
Thank you Laurent. I had been fighting this for weeks. I'm new to heartbeat and was about the throw in the towel. My config worked fine once I blanked it and read it back in using cibadmin and left off the notification module. Having your config was very helpful since I'm doing everything almos

Re: [Linux-HA] what is the main difference between HeartBeat Release 2.0.x and 2.1.x?

2008-09-08 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 09:20, heartbeat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi all,ould you please tell me he main difference between HeartBeat > Release 2.0.x and 2.1.x? > Or you can tell me where I can find the information about this. Thanks in > advance. in the rpm change logs __

Re: [Linux-HA] interesting start up problem

2008-09-08 Thread Andrew Beekhof
Please open a bug for this. On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 23:32, Itay Donenhirsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi list, > I have another interesting/weird problem: > I have 4 nodes - ibp1 to ibp3 and ibp-standby. > > I start them all up with debug level 2 and everybody sees everybody. Note > that I still

Re: [Linux-HA] Still not working ...

2008-09-08 Thread Franck Huet
Dejan Muhamedagic a écrit : On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 11:42:34AM +0200, Franck Huet wrote: Dejan Muhamedagic a ?crit : Hi, On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 09:48:14AM +0200, Franck Huet wrote: Thanks Lars It's works better now (with corrected mistakes ..) but I have now 2 ip (192.168.

Re: [Linux-HA] oracle-xe, xen, ocfs2 and heartbeat

2008-09-08 Thread Christian Lox
Am 25.08.2008 um 12:33 schrieb Andrew Beekhof: Incidentally, we've spent some time over the last few weeks adding Pacemaker support to OCFS2 (but only when using the OpenAIS messaging layer - not Heartbeat). The latest rpms at http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/server:/ha-clustering:/UN

Re: [Linux-HA] Watchdog configuration with SBD

2008-09-08 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2008-09-08T18:04:00, NAKAHIRA Kazutomo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm trying SBD that introduced into the latest lha-2.1 repository. > > In SBD official document(http://www.linux-ha.org/SBD_Fencing), > watchdog is recommended to be used, but I'm torn between > enable watchdog using sbd watch

Re: [Linux-HA] the maximum message size which bcast can handle

2008-09-08 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2008-09-08T17:24:30, Junko IKEDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It also means that heartbeat can't deliver a message if, after > > compressing the message, the size is still bigger than 256kB. > I see, > First control gate is 2MB, second is 256kB. Yes. > > > it, because the max size for sendt

[Linux-HA] "Reverse" heartbeat

2008-09-08 Thread Marc Gràcia Galobart
Hi all, I've tried to find the answer for that on the mailing list without success, so sorry if that's already answered. We are investigating the posibilites of using ha for our production systems, but we need some kind of strange configuration, and I need to know if that's possible to do with he

[Linux-HA] Watchdog configuration with SBD

2008-09-08 Thread NAKAHIRA Kazutomo
Hi, I'm trying SBD that introduced into the latest lha-2.1 repository. In SBD official document(http://www.linux-ha.org/SBD_Fencing), watchdog is recommended to be used, but I'm torn between enable watchdog using sbd watch command option "-W" and enable watchdog using watchdog directive in ha.cf.

RE: [Linux-HA] the maximum message size which bcast can handle

2008-09-08 Thread Junko IKEDA
> It means that heartbeat can't deliver a message if the uncompressed > size is bigger than 2MB. > It also means that heartbeat can't deliver a message if, after > compressing the message, the size is still bigger than 256kB. I see, First control gate is 2MB, second is 256kB. > > > If MAXMSG(256

Re: [Linux-HA] Linux-ha for firewalls

2008-09-08 Thread Niko
Dear Christof, I turns out I have an IPTables environments in charge with HB, and a trouble-some configuration to deal with at the moment. Sounds like your WP would come in pretty handy, could you please forward it to me? I would of course give you all the feedback I can about it. Thanks, Best

Re: [Linux-HA] the maximum message size which bcast can handle

2008-09-08 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 08:12, Junko IKEDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hmm. Perhaps this (the maximum packet size) has been checked by >> somebody before, then forgotten and it never got into discussion >> about the message compression. When I started working on the >> compression, the MAXMSG was