Re: [Pacemaker] long time to start

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 02:28:26PM -0500, Schaefer, Diane E wrote: > Hi, > I have a resource that sometimes can take 10 minutes to start after > a failure due to log records that need to be sync'd. (my own OCF) > > I noticed while the start action was being performed, if other > resources i

Re: [Pacemaker] long time to start

>> Actually this RA waits for the sync to complete. If it takes longer than >> the allotted time-out, Pacemaker SIGTERM/SIGKILLs it. The issue is if it >> can never complete in the allotted time frame... >Then make the timeout longer? I could make the timeout longer, although I'm not sure

Re: [Pacemaker] the better class plugin for a service?

Thanks for the answer. Ivan -Mensaje original- De: Dejan Muhamedagic [mailto:deja...@fastmail.fm] Enviado el: lunes, 19 de abril de 2010 13:26 Para: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager Asunto: Re: [Pacemaker] the better class plugin for a service? Hi, On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 0

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, > > Thank you for comment. > > But, does not the problem of the next email recur when I change it in > > INFINITY? > > > > * http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/60342 > > No, as I previously explained: By an answer before you, pingd moves well. However, does set

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

2010/4/19 : > Hi Andrew, > >> >> We want to realize start in order of the next. >> >>  1) clnPingd, clnG3dummy1, clnG3dummy2, clnUMgroup01 (All resources >> >> start) -> UMgroup01 start >> >>    * And the resource moves if a clone of one stops. >> >>  2) clnPingd, clnG3dummy1, clnG3dummy2 (All re

Re: [Pacemaker] long time to start

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Schaefer, Diane E wrote: >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> ? I have a resource that sometimes can take 10 minutes to start after a > >>> failure due to log records that need to be sync?d. (my own OCF)? I >>> noticed > >>> while the start action was being performed, if other reso

Re: [Pacemaker] long time to start

>> Hi, >> >> ? I have a resource that sometimes can take 10 minutes to start after a >> failure due to log records that need to be sync?d. (my own OCF)? I noticed >> while the start action was being performed, if other resources in my cluster >> report a ?not running?, no restart will be attem

Re: [Pacemaker] Assessment of the performance of a Pacemaker/Corosync active/active cluster

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Francesco Petretti > wrote: >> We have a couple of VMWare virtual machines, both running the same >> Operating >> System (RHEL 5.4); >> these guest systems run on different virtualization hosts. >> >> Both nodes run an Apache web server, serving the pages: "I am

Re: [Pacemaker] the better class plugin for a service?

Hi, On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 06:01:17PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Ivan Coronado wrote: > > And why is a better choice? How I can know? > > The OCF standard is better in many ways, including its support for > parameters and the error codes it returns. LSB cla

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, > >> We want to realize start in order of the next. > >> 1) clnPingd, clnG3dummy1, clnG3dummy2, clnUMgroup01 (All resources start) > >> -> UMgroup01 start > >>* And the resource moves if a clone of one stops. > >> 2) clnPingd, clnG3dummy1, clnG3dummy2 (All resources start) -> >

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

2010/4/19 : > Hi Andrew, > > Are you busy? > Please give my question an answer. > > Best Regards, > Hideo Yamauchi. > > --- renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> I ask you a question one more. >> >> Our real resource constitution is a little more complicated. >> >> We do colocati

Re: [Pacemaker] the behavior of clone resource

I tried to look at this one (finally!) but the two PE files i need (pe-input-7.bz2 and pe-input-8.bz2 from cspm01) are missing. Very strange. 2010/3/18 Andrew Beekhof : > 2010/3/16 Junko IKEDA : >> Hi, >> >> There is just a little strange clone behavior. >> I found that; >> >> (1) start the group

Re: [Pacemaker] Failover after fail on Ethernet Fails (unSolved again)

Configs alone rarely help. We need logs too. On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Kelemen wrote: > Confused > > I made your solution, but now i dont have Failover again. > > location loc_drbd_on_connected_node ms_drbd_service \ >        rule $id="loc_drbd_on_connected_node-rule" pingd: defined

Re: [Pacemaker] Failover constraint problem

Hi Sandor, > 1. If I migrate apache-group resorce to another node then nfs_client > won't release the /mnt mount point (I know according to this config it > should not). Refering to teh time-out message below, is it possible that stopping the nfs-client takes more than 20 sec? Perhaps you shou

Re: [Pacemaker] primitive dlm ocf:pacemaker:controld --> WARNING: dlm: default-action-timeout 20s for start is smaller than the advised 90

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Roberto Giordani wrote: > Hi Andrew, > these are the rpms installed on Opensuse 11.2 x86_64 to obtain a cluster > with OCFS2 and DLM support on Xen kernel > > pacemaker-pygui-1.4-15.1.x86_64 > pacemaker-1.0.8-4.x86_64 > libpacemaker3-1.0.8-4.x86_64 > > libdlm-2.99.