Hmm. I will then work towards bringing this in. Thanks for your input.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Digimer wrote:
> On 22/06/16 01:07 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > I don't get it. Pacemaker + Corosync is providing me so much of
> > functionality.
> > For e.g. if we leave out the condition o
On 22/06/16 01:09 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> We are not using virtual IP. There is a separate discovery mechanism
> between the server and client. The client will reach out to new server
> only if it is incommunicado with the old one.
That's fine, but it really doesn't change anything. Whether you'
On 22/06/16 01:07 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> I don't get it. Pacemaker + Corosync is providing me so much of
> functionality.
> For e.g. if we leave out the condition of split-brain for a while, then
> it provides:
> 1) Discovery and cluster formation
> 2) Synchronization of data
> 3) Heartbeat mec
We are not using virtual IP. There is a separate discovery mechanism
between the server and client. The client will reach out to new server only
if it is incommunicado with the old one.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Dmitri Maziuk
wrote:
> On 2016-06-20 17:19, Digimer wrote:
>
> Nikhil indicat
I don't get it. Pacemaker + Corosync is providing me so much of
functionality.
For e.g. if we leave out the condition of split-brain for a while, then it
provides:
1) Discovery and cluster formation
2) Synchronization of data
3) Heartbeat mechanism
4) Swift failover of the resource
5) Guarantee th
ClusterLabs is proud to announce the latest release of the Pacemaker
cluster resource manager, version 1.1.15. The source code is available at:
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/releases/tag/Pacemaker-1.1.15
The most significant enhancements since version 1.1.14 are:
* A new "alerts" secti
On 06/21/2016 12:54 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
... While most HA professionals
> recommend fencing, and most companies that sell enterprise support
> require it in order to support a cluster, Pacemaker itself does not
> require it.
That may be true but every question about that seems to be answered w
On 06/20/2016 11:33 PM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> Let me give the full picture about our solution. It will then make it
> easy to have the discussion.
>
> We are looking at providing N + 1 Redundancy to our application servers,
> i.e. 1 standby for upto N active (currently N<=5). Each server will have
On 06/21/2016 12:27 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 12:13 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>> You should not run pacemaker without some sort of fencing. This
>> need not be network-controlled power socket (and tiebreaker is
>> not directly related to fencing).
Fencing is a best practice fo
On 21/06/16 01:27 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 12:13 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>> You should not run pacemaker without some sort of fencing. This need not
>> be network-controlled power socket (and tiebreaker is not directly
>> related to fencing).
>
> Yes it can be sysadmin-cont
On 21/06/16 01:05 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 11:47 AM, Digimer wrote:
>
>> If you don't need to coordinate services/access, you don't need HA.
>>
>> If you do need to coordinate services/access, you need fencing.
>
> So what you're saying is we *cannot* run a pacemaker cluster with
21.06.2016 20:27, Dimitri Maziuk пишет:
> On 06/21/2016 12:13 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>> You should not run pacemaker without some sort of fencing. This need not
>> be network-controlled power socket (and tiebreaker is not directly
>> related to fencing).
>
> Yes it can be sysadmin-controll
On 06/21/2016 12:13 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> You should not run pacemaker without some sort of fencing. This need not
> be network-controlled power socket (and tiebreaker is not directly
> related to fencing).
Yes it can be sysadmin-controlled power socket. It has to be a power
socket, if yo
21.06.2016 20:05, Dimitri Maziuk пишет:
> On 06/21/2016 11:47 AM, Digimer wrote:
>
>> If you don't need to coordinate services/access, you don't need HA.
>>
>> If you do need to coordinate services/access, you need fencing.
>
> So what you're saying is we *cannot* run a pacemaker cluster without
On 06/21/2016 11:47 AM, Digimer wrote:
> If you don't need to coordinate services/access, you don't need HA.
>
> If you do need to coordinate services/access, you need fencing.
So what you're saying is we *cannot* run a pacemaker cluster without a
tiebreaker node *and* a network-controlled power
On 21/06/16 10:57 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 2016-06-20 17:19, Digimer wrote:
>
>> Nikhil indicated that they could switch where traffic went up-stream
>> without issue, if I understood properly.
>
> They have some interesting setup, but that notwithstanding: if split
> brain happens some clie
On 21/06/16 12:19 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 06/17/2016 07:05 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>> 03.05.2016 01:14, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>> On 04/19/2016 10:47 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
Hi,
Just found an issue with node is silently unfenced.
That is quite large setup (2 cl
On 06/17/2016 07:05 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 03.05.2016 01:14, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On 04/19/2016 10:47 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just found an issue with node is silently unfenced.
>>>
>>> That is quite large setup (2 cluster nodes and 8 remote ones) with
>>> a plenty o
On 2016-06-20 17:19, Digimer wrote:
Nikhil indicated that they could switch where traffic went up-stream
without issue, if I understood properly.
They have some interesting setup, but that notwithstanding: if split
brain happens some clients will connect to "old master" and some: to
"new mas
19 matches
Mail list logo
