Re: [Pacemaker] Fencing of movable VirtualDomains

2014-10-13 Thread Daniel Dehennin
Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net writes: [...] Is the ipaddr for each device really the same? If so, why not use a single 'resource'? No, sorry, the IP addr was not the same. Also, 1.1.7 wasn't as smart as 1.1.12 when it came to deciding which fencing device to use. Likely you'll get

Re: [Pacemaker] Fencing of movable VirtualDomains

2014-10-12 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On 7 Oct 2014, at 6:28 pm, Daniel Dehennin daniel.dehen...@baby-gnu.org wrote: Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net writes: Maybe not, the collocation should be sufficient, but even without the orders, unclean VMs fencing is tried with other Stonith devices. Which other devices? The config

Re: [Pacemaker] Fencing of movable VirtualDomains

2014-10-07 Thread Daniel Dehennin
Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net writes: Maybe not, the collocation should be sufficient, but even without the orders, unclean VMs fencing is tried with other Stonith devices. Which other devices? The config you sent through didnt have any others. Sorry I sent it to linux-cluster

Re: [Pacemaker] Fencing of movable VirtualDomains

2014-10-06 Thread Daniel Dehennin
Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net writes: It may be due to two “order”: #+begin_src order ONE-Frontend-after-its-Stonith inf: Stonith-ONE-Frontend ONE-Frontend order Quorum-Node-after-its-Stonith inf: Stonith-Quorum-Node Quorum-Node #+end_src Probably. Any particular reason for them to

Re: [Pacemaker] Fencing of movable VirtualDomains

2014-10-06 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On 6 Oct 2014, at 8:14 pm, Daniel Dehennin daniel.dehen...@baby-gnu.org wrote: Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net writes: It may be due to two “order”: #+begin_src order ONE-Frontend-after-its-Stonith inf: Stonith-ONE-Frontend ONE-Frontend order Quorum-Node-after-its-Stonith inf:

Re: [Pacemaker] Fencing of movable VirtualDomains

2014-10-05 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On 3 Oct 2014, at 3:22 am, Daniel Dehennin daniel.dehen...@baby-gnu.org wrote: emmanuel segura emi2f...@gmail.com writes: for guest fencing you can use, something like this http://www.daemonzone.net/e/3/, rather to have a full cluster stack in your guest, you can try to use

[Pacemaker] Fencing of movable VirtualDomains

2014-10-02 Thread Daniel Dehennin
Hello, I'm setting up a 3 nodes OpenNebula[1] cluster on Debian Wheezy using a SAN for shared storage and KVM as hypervisor. The OpenNebula fontend is a VM for HA[2]. I had some quorum issues when the node running the fontend die as the two other nodes loose quorum, so I added a pure quorum

Re: [Pacemaker] Fencing of movable VirtualDomains

2014-10-02 Thread emmanuel segura
for guest fencing you can use, something like this http://www.daemonzone.net/e/3/, rather to have a full cluster stack in your guest, you can try to use pacemaker-remote for your virtual guest 2014-10-02 18:41 GMT+02:00 Daniel Dehennin daniel.dehen...@baby-gnu.org: Hello, I'm setting up a 3

Re: [Pacemaker] Fencing of movable VirtualDomains

2014-10-02 Thread Daniel Dehennin
emmanuel segura emi2f...@gmail.com writes: for guest fencing you can use, something like this http://www.daemonzone.net/e/3/, rather to have a full cluster stack in your guest, you can try to use pacemaker-remote for your virtual guest I think it could be done for the pure quorum node, but my