Hi mike,
it seems to be no HA-problem anymore though, but:
Am Montag, 31. Mai 2010 01:29 schrieb mike:
So I've got ldirector up and running just fine and providing ldap high
availability to 2 backend real servers on port 389.
Here is the output of netstat on both real servers:
tcp
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Diego Woitasen dieg...@xtech.com.ar wrote:
Hi,
* I have three nodes: ha1, ha2 y ha3.
* Three resources: sfex, xfs_fs, ip.
* sfex and xfs_fs are members of a group called xfs_grp.
* xfs_grp can run on any node but ip resource can run on ha1 or
ha2 only.
Hi,
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:16:22PM +0200, RaSca wrote:
Il giorno Ven 28 Mag 2010 12:34:06 CET, RaSca ha scritto:
[...]
Note that the nfs-kernel-server isn't connected to the exportfs, but is
only a cloned resource, so it isn't touched by the migration process.
[...]
Ok Dejan,
I've
Hi,
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:59:01AM -0400, Chris May wrote:
I have a basic 2 node cluster running Apache / Drbd / . When the Filesystem
Resource attempts to start the error that comes threw the logs is Couldnt
sucessfully fsck filesystem for /dev/mapper/VolGroup-drbd .
By the way this
Nikita Michalko wrote:
Hi mike,
it seems to be no HA-problem anymore though, but:
Am Montag, 31. Mai 2010 01:29 schrieb mike:
So I've got ldirector up and running just fine and providing ldap high
availability to 2 backend real servers on port 389.
Here is the output of netstat on
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Diego Woitasen dieg...@xtech.com.ar
wrote:
Hi,
* I have three nodes: ha1, ha2 y ha3.
* Three resources: sfex, xfs_fs, ip.
* sfex and xfs_fs are members of a group called
Il giorno Lun 31 Mag 2010 13:14:17 CET, Dejan Muhamedagic ha scritto:
[...]
My guess is that the timeout you set is too short. Not sure, but
I think that somebody mentioned that it takes at least 80 seconds
for the nfsd v4 to really stop. Was nfsd being stopped here at
all?
Thanks,
As I
Hi all,
I have a cluster with two nodes configured to mount two drbd, with LVM
and filesystem. I need to put each drbd on a different node, for an
active-active setup, like a storage, so I have two groups like these:
group share-a share-a-ip share-a-LVM share-a-fs
group share-b share-b-ip
mike wrote:
Nikita Michalko wrote:
Hi mike,
it seems to be no HA-problem anymore though, but:
Am Montag, 31. Mai 2010 01:29 schrieb mike:
So I've got ldirector up and running just fine and providing ldap high
availability to 2 backend real servers on port 389.
Here is
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 04:09:03PM -0700, Bob Schatz wrote:
Thanks Lars and Dejan for your feedback.
I have started reading the lrmd source.
Good old inittab, anyone?
One thing I am worried about is that if I give a PID to lrmd, how will lrmd
monitor it?
My RA is a shell script that
On 2010-05-28T16:09:03, Bob Schatz bsch...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have started reading the lrmd source.
One thing I am worried about is that if I give a PID to lrmd, how will lrmd
monitor it?
My RA is a shell script that forks off a daemon. If I give this daemon PID
to lrmd does lrmd
On 2010-05-17T08:40:51, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote:
Exit codes weren't implemented since upstart knows a bit more states
than just 'running' or 'not running', i.e. it knows distinction between
running, but stopping and running.
Which is still no excuse for them not doing exit
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:47:43PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2010-05-31T11:45:37, Lars Ellenberg lars.ellenb...@linbit.com wrote:
Use the anything resource agent, and define a monitor action script
of your choice? or put a loop in your script, and restart whatever is
necessary
On 2010-05-31T18:16:30, Lars Ellenberg lars.ellenb...@linbit.com wrote:
There are several flavors of overhead.
One underestimated is programming and code maintenance overhead ;-)
Why would we register pid with lrm and duplicate code from heartbeat
proper to lrmd and whatnot, or even rewrite
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:48:02PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
...
You're embedding policy into code here. Who said anything about the
proper response being the daemon being restarted being the right
response? Maybe the whole point is to initiate full PE-level recovery?
Of course you
15 matches
Mail list logo
