Re: [Pacemaker] colocation that doesn't

2010-11-04 Thread Vadym Chepkov
On Nov 3, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Alan Jones wrote: I running with Pacemaker 1.0.9.1 and Corosync 1.2.7. I have a simple config below where colocation seems to have the opposite effect. Note that if you force myprim's location then mystateful's Master will colocate correctly. The command I use

[Pacemaker] Corosync using unicast instead of multicast

2010-11-04 Thread Dan Frincu
Hi all, I'm having an issue with a setup using the following: cluster-glue-1.0.6-1.6.el5.x86_64.rpm cluster-glue-libs-1.0.6-1.6.el5.x86_64.rpm corosync-1.2.7-1.1.el5.x86_64.rpm corosynclib-1.2.7-1.1.el5.x86_64.rpm drbd83-8.3.2-6.el5_3.x86_64.rpm kmod-drbd83-8.3.2-6.el5_3.x86_64.rpm

Re: [Pacemaker] colocation that doesn't

2010-11-04 Thread Dejan Muhamedagic
Hi, On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 04:24:07PM -0700, Alan Jones wrote: I running with Pacemaker 1.0.9.1 and Corosync 1.2.7. I have a simple config below where colocation seems to have the opposite effect. Note that if you force myprim's location then mystateful's Master will colocate correctly.

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem with configuring stonith rcd_serial

2010-11-04 Thread Eberhard Kuemmerle
On 3 Nov 2010 19:21, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: There are still some strange entries in /var/log/messages, but the STONITH action is performed correctly! Just for your information, here are the messages: Nov 3 16:41:50 node2 pengine: [5327]: WARN: stage6: Scheduling Node node1 for STONITH

[Pacemaker] Cluster Shutdown

2010-11-04 Thread Samuel CUELLA
Hi List, I'm currently trying to implement a complete cluster shutdown to react to a 'catastrophic' failure like a power outage. The problem is that if I try to shut it down node by nodes, resources are migrated. Of course, this is the correct behavior. I searched the internet and the

Re: [Pacemaker] Cluster Shutdown

2010-11-04 Thread Lars Ellenberg
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:01:29AM +0100, Samuel CUELLA wrote: Hi List, I'm currently trying to implement a complete cluster shutdown to react to a 'catastrophic' failure like a power outage. The problem is that if I try to shut it down node by nodes, resources are migrated. Of course,

[Pacemaker] crm_mon and pingd

2010-11-04 Thread Vadym Chepkov
Hi, It seems this patch in pacemaker doesn't work as expected changeset: 15672:4d50adc3ccd9 branch: stable-1.0 user:Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net date:Mon May 10 10:26:50 2010 +0200 summary: Medium: tools: crm_mon - Enable 'connectivity' mode for 'ping' resources

[Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Michael Schwartzkopff
Hi, I want to create a cluster with DRBD, Filesystem, a service and an IP address. Failover should only be triggered by a sys admin and not happen automatically. I was wondering if I could solve this with a symmetric-cluster=false property of the cluster. How does the CRM start resources on

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Michael Schwartzkopff
On Thursday 04 November 2010 11:23:18 Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: Hi, I want to create a cluster with DRBD, Filesystem, a service and an IP address. Failover should only be triggered by a sys admin and not happen automatically. I was wondering if I could solve this with a

Re: [Pacemaker] colocation that doesn't

2010-11-04 Thread Vadym Chepkov
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:37 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic deja...@fastmail.fm wrote: This should be: colocation mystateful-ms-loc inf: mystateful-ms:Master myprim:Started Interesting, so in this case it is not necessary? colocation fs_on_drbd inf: WebFS WebDataClone:Master (taken from

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Pavlos Parissis
On 4 November 2010 11:30, Michael Schwartzkopff mi...@clusterbau.com wrote: On Thursday 04 November 2010 11:23:18 Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: Hi, I want to create a cluster with DRBD, Filesystem, a service and an IP address. Failover should only be triggered by a sys admin and not happen

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Michael Schwartzkopff
On Thursday 04 November 2010 11:56:54 Pavlos Parissis wrote: On 4 November 2010 11:30, Michael Schwartzkopff mi...@clusterbau.com wrote: On Thursday 04 November 2010 11:23:18 Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: Hi, I want to create a cluster with DRBD, Filesystem, a service and an IP address.

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Pavlos Parissis
On 4 November 2010 12:01, Michael Schwartzkopff mi...@clusterbau.com wrote: On Thursday 04 November 2010 11:56:54 Pavlos Parissis wrote: On 4 November 2010 11:30, Michael Schwartzkopff mi...@clusterbau.com wrote: On Thursday 04 November 2010 11:23:18 Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: Hi, I want

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Vladislav Bogdanov
04.11.2010 13:36, Pavlos Parissis wrote: ... why do you want that? Customer request. Definitely NOT my idea. something like this could be useful location master-location ms-drbd_02 rule $id=master-rule $role=Master -1000: #uname eq node-02 -1000 is too weak s/-1000/-inf/ this will

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Vadym Chepkov
On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: On Thursday 04 November 2010 11:23:18 Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: Hi, I want to create a cluster with DRBD, Filesystem, a service and an IP address. Failover should only be triggered by a sys admin and not happen automatically. I was

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Pavlos Parissis
On 4 November 2010 14:18, Vladislav Bogdanov bub...@hoster-ok.com wrote: 04.11.2010 13:36, Pavlos Parissis wrote: ... why do you want that? Customer request. Definitely NOT my idea. something like this could be useful location master-location ms-drbd_02 rule $id=master-rule

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Michael Schwartzkopff
On Thursday 04 November 2010 14:41:54 Vadym Chepkov wrote: On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: On Thursday 04 November 2010 11:23:18 Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: Hi, I want to create a cluster with DRBD, Filesystem, a service and an IP address. Failover should only be

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Michael Schwartzkopff
On Thursday 04 November 2010 14:50:24 Pavlos Parissis wrote: On 4 November 2010 14:18, Vladislav Bogdanov bub...@hoster-ok.com wrote: 04.11.2010 13:36, Pavlos Parissis wrote: ... why do you want that? Customer request. Definitely NOT my idea. something like this could be

Re: [Pacemaker] colocation that doesn't

2010-11-04 Thread Dejan Muhamedagic
Hi, On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 06:51:59AM -0400, Vadym Chepkov wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:37 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic deja...@fastmail.fm wrote: This should be: colocation mystateful-ms-loc inf: mystateful-ms:Master myprim:Started Interesting, so in this case it is not necessary?

Re: [Pacemaker] colocation that doesn't

2010-11-04 Thread Alan Jones
If I understand you correctly, the role of the second resource in the colocation command was defaulting to that of the first Master which is not defined or is untested for none-ms resources. Unfortunately, after changed that line to: colocation mystateful-ms-loc inf: mystateful-ms:Master

Re: [Pacemaker] Corosync using unicast instead of multicast

2010-11-04 Thread Alan Jones
This question should be on the openais list, however, I happen to know the answer. To get up and running quickly you can configure broadcast with the version you have. Corosync can distinguish separate clusters with the multicast address and port that become payload to the messages. The patch you

Re: [Pacemaker] Manually controlled cluster

2010-11-04 Thread Michael Schwartzkopff
On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:11:32 Rainer wrote: Michael Schwartzkopff mi...@... writes: Thanks for any hints. Okay i am curious. Why don`t you just change the node health strategy? Kind regards, Rainer Because I want to run the drbd secondary on the secondary node. -- Dr. Michael

Re: [Pacemaker] colocation that doesn't

2010-11-04 Thread Vadym Chepkov
On Nov 4, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Alan Jones wrote: If I understand you correctly, the role of the second resource in the colocation command was defaulting to that of the first Master which is not defined or is untested for none-ms resources. Unfortunately, after changed that line to:

Re: [Pacemaker] crm_mon and pingd

2010-11-04 Thread Yuusuke IIDA
Hi, Vadym I can confirm the attribute information of the current node with a crm_mon -A option. http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/stable-1.0/rev/e674c1977128 I came to display all the attribute information of the node by this change. Therefore the score indication function of pingd deleted