Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation

2010-11-13 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote: colocation X-Y -2: X Y colocation Y-X -2: Y X the second one is implied by the first and is therefore redundant If only that were true! It

Re: [Pacemaker] Project updates

2010-11-13 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Vadym Chepkov vchep...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote: For those that aren't using RSS readers, I wanted to draw people's attention to a couple of updates that went out today. Nothing dramatic, just a

Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation

2010-11-13 Thread Alan Jones
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote: colocation X-Y -2: X Y colocation Y-X -2: Y X the second one is

Re: [Pacemaker] 2 node failover cluster + MySQL Master-Master replica setup

2010-11-13 Thread Ruzsinszky Attila
That's what I said - I didn't see it either. but if you you check the current RA: What do you think about this: http://www.lathiat.net/files/MySQL%20-%20DRBD%20%20Pacemaker.pdf I can't see if this is a real M-M or M-S setup. TIA, Ruzsi ___ Pacemaker

Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation

2010-11-13 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net

[Pacemaker] (no subject)

2010-11-13 Thread Bob Schatz
pLunch this week?brbrbr/p pSent from Yahoo! Mail on Android/p ___ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started:

Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation

2010-11-13 Thread Alan Jones
I have tried larger values.  If you know of a value that *should* work, please share it. INFINITY My understanding is that a colocation score of minus infinity will prevent the resources from running on the same node, which in my configuration would result in a loss of availability. The goal

Re: [Pacemaker] start filesystem like this is right?

2010-11-13 Thread jiaju liu
start resource steps step(1) crm configure primitive?vol_mpath0 ocf:heartbeat:Filesystem meta target-role=stopped params device=/dev/mapper/mpath0 directory=/mnt/mapper/mpath0 fstype='lustre' op start timeout=300s? op stop timeout=120s op monitor timeout=120s interval=60s op notify