On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 12:51 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
Even the same address can be a problem. That brief window where things were
getting renewed can screw up corosync.
But as I proved, there was no renewal at all during the period of this
entire pacemaker run, so the use of DHCP here is
On 11 Oct 2014, at 1:35 am, Brian J. Murrell (brian) br...@interlinx.bc.ca
wrote:
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 12:39 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 8 Oct 2014, at 2:09 am, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
brian-squohqy54cvwr29bmmi...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Given a 2 node pacemaker-1.1.10-14.el6_5.3
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 12:39 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 8 Oct 2014, at 2:09 am, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
brian-squohqy54cvwr29bmmi...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Given a 2 node pacemaker-1.1.10-14.el6_5.3 cluster with nodes node5
and node6 I saw an unknown third node being added to the
Given a 2 node pacemaker-1.1.10-14.el6_5.3 cluster with nodes node5
and node6 I saw an unknown third node being added to the cluster,
but only on node5:
Sep 18 22:52:16 node5 corosync[17321]: [pcmk ] notice: pcmk_peer_update:
Transitional membership event on ring 12: memb=2, new=0, lost=0
Sep
On 8 Oct 2014, at 2:09 am, Brian J. Murrell (brian) br...@interlinx.bc.ca
wrote:
Given a 2 node pacemaker-1.1.10-14.el6_5.3 cluster with nodes node5
and node6 I saw an unknown third node being added to the cluster,
but only on node5:
Is either node using dhcp?
I would guess node6 got a new
