On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Stephen Carville (HA List) <
62d2a...@opayq.com> wrote:
> On 07/31/2017 11:13 PM, Ulrich Windl [Masked] wrote:
>
> I guess you have no fencing configured, right?
>
> No. I didn't realize it was necessary unless there was shared storage
> involved. I guess it is ti
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Lentes, Bernd <
bernd.len...@helmholtz-muenchen.de> wrote:
> Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: (0/root) Gid: (0/root)
>
> Access: (0640/-rw-r-) Uid: (0/root) Gid: (0/root)
>
> I see no important difference, just the different
(Apologies if this is a duplicate. I accidentally posted to the old
linux-ha.org address, and I couldn't tell from the auto-reply whether my
message was actually posted to the list or not).
For the second time in a few weeks, we have had one node of a particular
cluster getting fenced. It isn't to
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Devin Ortner <
devin.ort...@gtshq.onmicrosoft.com> wrote:
> Master/Slave Set: ClusterDBclone [ClusterDB]
> Masters: [ node1 ]
> Slaves: [ node2 ]
> ClusterFS (ocf::heartbeat:Filesystem):Started node1
>
As Digimer said, you really need fencing wh
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Jason A Ramsey wrote:
> Failed Actions:
>
> * gctvanas-lvm_start_0 on node1 'not running' (7): call=42,
> status=complete, exitreason='LVM: targetfs did not activate correctly',
>
> last-rc-change='Fri Aug 26 10:57:22 2016', queued=0ms, exec=577ms
>
> * gctvan
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Andreas Kurz
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Patrick Zwahlen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The problem I see is what a lot of people have already mentioned:
>> Failover works nicely but failback takes a very long time.
>>
>> This is a known problem ... have a l
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Andrei Borzenkov
wrote:
> tcm_node is part of lio-utils. I am not familiar with RedHat packages,
> but I presume that searching for "lio" should reveal something.
>
I checked on both Fedora and CentOS, and there is no such package and no
package provides a file
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Kostiantyn Ponomarenko <
konstantin.ponomare...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jan 29 07:00:43 B5-2U-205-LS corosync[2742]: [MAIN ] Corosync main
> process was not scheduled for 12483.7363 ms (threshold is 800. ms).
> Consider token timeout increase.
I was having this
