On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 06:57:29PM +0100, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
On 12/28/2010 07:00 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
what i'm thinking about:
1. issue /sbin/ip rule add from a.b.c.0/24 table 12 upon
reboot/firewall setup (my current solution); or
Probably the easiest way right
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 06:55:21PM +0100, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
On 12/29/2010 05:36 PM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
On 12/29/2010 04:12 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
What seems to me the best is to simply avoid the issue and do:
local names
names=`echo $snmp_result | cut -f2
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:29:10PM +0100, alexander.kra...@basf.com wrote:
Hi,
I was recently reviewing some logs of a SAP HA installation and
found out that SAPInstance tries to start the service in the
monitor action. That includes probes too. Further, if it finds a
different
Hi,
This is a similar issue we recently discussed about SAPInstance
and perhaps it can be resolved in a similar way. That is to
start the listener only in case there are already some oracle
processes running and we want to do a better test.
See the attached patch.
Thanks,
Dejan
diff -r
On 12/28/2010 06:46 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
40 order constraints? A big cluster.
We have currently 40 VM's (XEN) on it. I can't put them in a group since
they have to run independently and not necessarily on the same node(s).
To make it worse I also have location constraints and
Hi i am a completely newbie,
but it seems that i will have to use Heartbeat to solve my problem.
I have to install 2 jboss instancies on 1 server (multihoming/ vertical
cluster) and unfortunataly the aplication inside jboss cant be run in an
active/active cluster.
now i have found this:
On Tuesday 04 January 2011 12:31:14 Imran Chaudhry wrote:
Hi List,
Has anyone found a good solution to administering an established
2-node cluster running heartbeat 2.13 on Debian Lenny?
No, since version 2.1.3 is extremly buggy. Please consider using pacemaker
from the backports.
--
Dr.
On 01/04/2011 12:31 PM, Imran Chaudhry wrote:
Hi List,
Has anyone found a good solution to administering an established
2-node cluster running heartbeat 2.13 on Debian Lenny?
I have 2.1.4 on RHEL5 still running. It also has the GUI (although it
can be dangerous).
b) Save the CIB XML,
A few weeks I reported that heartbeat died on one of the cluster machines,
due to SIGXCPU.
Well, it happened again. Heartbeat died, now both machines had the shared IP
address up, what a god awful mess!!!
Nopw they have split brain and the whole nine yards!
I looked at
Further reading indicates that heartbeat itself sets a limit for itself
every so often.
Then it exceeds the limit (probably due to a bug). I am sure that tha's why
whoever wrote heartbeat, set cpu limit, instead of foxing their bugs.
Then it dies with SIGXCPU, leaving everything in an extremely
On 4 January 2011 13:47, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
Further reading indicates that heartbeat itself sets a limit for itself
every so often.
Then it exceeds the limit (probably due to a bug). I am sure that tha's why
whoever wrote heartbeat, set cpu limit, instead of foxing their
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 01:14:39PM +0100, Tobias Appel wrote:
On 01/04/2011 12:31 PM, Imran Chaudhry wrote:
Hi List,
Has anyone found a good solution to administering an established
2-node cluster running heartbeat 2.13 on Debian Lenny?
I have 2.1.4 on RHEL5 still running. It also has
Which OS?
Which version of Hearbeat?
heartbeat_pid - PID of which of Heartbeat processes? It has several.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
A few weeks I reported that heartbeat died on one of the cluster machines,
due to SIGXCPU.
Well, it happened
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 07:47:10AM -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
Further reading indicates that heartbeat itself sets a limit for itself
every so often.
True.
Then it exceeds the limit (probably due to a bug). I am sure that tha's why
whoever wrote heartbeat, set cpu limit, instead of
Steve, here's some data.
The OS is Ubuntu 10.04.
~# apt-cache policy heartbeat
heartbeat:
Installed: 1:3.0.3-1ubuntu1
Candidate: 1:3.0.3-1ubuntu1
Version table:
*** 1:3.0.3-1ubuntu1 0
500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid/universe Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Serge Dubrouski serge...@gmail.com wrote:
Which OS?
Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid.
Which version of Hearbeat?
3.0.3
~# apt-cache policy heartbeat
heartbeat:
Installed: 1:3.0.3-1ubuntu1
Candidate: 1:3.0.3-1ubuntu1
Version table:
*** 1:3.0.3-1ubuntu1 0
Are you sure that everything is all right with your network? It looks
like processes that are responsible for UDP communications are taking
too much of CPU time.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve, here's some data.
The OS is Ubuntu 10.04.
~# apt-cache
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 08:56:09PM +, James Smith wrote:
Hi,
I've been hitting some problems with my drbd / iscsi-target clusters,
resources
dropping in to FAILED (unmanaged) states etc. I'm after a bit of a sanity
check
on the config below.
Firstly, I know the timesouts and
Right now my only recourse is one of these options:
a) Install Ubuntu 8.04 in a VM and use heartbeat-gui
Have you installed the package heartbeat-2-gui? It provides
/usr/lib/heartbeat-gui/haclient.py which is called heartbeat-gui in Ubuntu.
-Ryan
Serge, I am not sure of anything, but the self-communication is supposed to
be taking place on a single crossover cable between second network cards of
the servers. (eth1).
Igor
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Serge Dubrouski serge...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you sure that everything is all right
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 04:52:38PM +0100, Nico Faerber wrote:
Salute
I have some troubles setting up a pingd clone resource.
I'm using pacemaker 1.0.8 with corosync 1.2.0 running on a ubuntu 10.04.
after setting up the resource crm/configure/show gives this:
primitive pingd
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Igor Chudov ichu...@gmail.com wrote:
Serge, I am not sure of anything, but the self-communication is supposed to
be taking place on a single crossover cable between second network cards of
the servers. (eth1).
Agree, yet something strange and pretty unique is
Igor Chudov wrote:
At this point I feel rather desperate. Perhaps I should give pacemaker
another go. I really have no idea and I am running out of options.
If all you need is a 2-node active-passive cluster, most (all?)
pacemaker features are useless for you. (Besides, one look at their
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Dimitri Maziuk dmaz...@bmrb.wisc.edu wrote:
Igor Chudov wrote:
At this point I feel rather desperate. Perhaps I should give pacemaker
another go. I really have no idea and I am running out of options.
If all you need is a 2-node active-passive cluster, most
24 matches
Mail list logo
