On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:47 am, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 18:26 -0500, David Vossel wrote:
>>
>> We did away with all of the policy engine logic involved with trying to move
>> fencing devices off of the target node before executing the fencing action.
>> Behind the scen
On 2013-12-03T19:47:41, "Brian J. Murrell" wrote:
> So given all of the above, and given the log I supplied showing that the
> fencing was just not being attempted anywhere other than the node to be
> fenced (which was down during that log) any clues as to where to look
> for why?
As far as I sa
04.12.2013, 03:30, "David Vossel" :
> - Original Message -
>
>> From: "Brian J. Murrell"
>> To: pacema...@clusterlabs.org
>> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 2:50:41 PM
>> Subject: [Pacemaker] catch-22: can't fence node A bec
It explains the differences, but unfortunately I'm still not sure why it
wouldn't get run somewhere else, eventually, rather than continually
being attempted on the node to be killed (which as I mentioned, was shut
down at the time the log was made).
Cheers,
b.
May be fence devices were start
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 18:26 -0500, David Vossel wrote:
>
> We did away with all of the policy engine logic involved with trying to move
> fencing devices off of the target node before executing the fencing action.
> Behind the scenes all fencing devices are now essentially clones. If the
> t
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian J. Murrell"
> To: pacema...@clusterlabs.org
> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 2:50:41 PM
> Subject: [Pacemaker] catch-22: can't fence node A because node A has the
> fencing resource
>
> So, I'm migratin
So, I'm migrating my working pacemaker configuration from 1.1.7 to
1.1.10 and am finding what appears to be a new behavior in 1.1.10.
If a given node is running a fencing resource and that node goes AWOL,
it needs to be fenced (of course). But any other node trying to take
over the fencing resour
