Greetings from a confused user;
We are running pacemaker as part of a load-balanced cluster of two members,
both VMWare VMs, with both acting as stepping-stones to our DNS recursive
resolvers (RR). Simple use - the /etc/resolver.conf on the *NIX boxes points
at both IPs, and the cluster
What I am struggling to understand here, is why it is being referred to as
a "SAN" when it is not concurrently available... how are you mounting this
"SAN" on each host?
On 5 September 2018 at 18:55, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 05.09.2018 19:13, Lentes, Bernd пишет:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > just to
05.09.2018 19:13, Lentes, Bernd пишет:
> Hi guys,
>
> just to be sure. I thought (maybe i'm wrong) that having a VM on a shared
> storage (FC SAN), e.g. in a raw file on an ext3 fs on that SAN allows
> live-migration because pacemaker takes care that the ext3 fs is at any time
> only mounted
>If you build from source, you can apply the patch that fixes the issue
>to the 1.1.14 code base:
>https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/commit/98457d1635db1222f93599b6021e662e766ce62d
[1]
Just applied the patch and now it works as expected. The unseen node is
only rebooted once on startup
Why you use FS for raw image, when you can use directly LV as block device for
your VM
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 18:34, Lentes, Bernd
> wrote:
>
>
>
> - On Sep 5, 2018, at 6:28 PM, FeldHost™ Admin ad...@feldhost.cz wrote:
>
>> hello, yes, you need ocfs2 or gfs2, but in your case (raw image)
Or iscsi, or nfs. But there are many better solutions nowdays. of course it
does all depend on your setup but ext3 is crazy old now!
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, 19:35 Lentes, Bernd,
wrote:
>
>
> - On Sep 5, 2018, at 6:28 PM, FeldHost™ Admin ad...@feldhost.cz wrote:
>
> > hello, yes, you need ocfs2
- On Sep 5, 2018, at 6:28 PM, FeldHost™ Admin ad...@feldhost.cz wrote:
> hello, yes, you need ocfs2 or gfs2, but in your case (raw image) probably
> better
> to use lvm
I use cLVM. The fs for the raw image resides on a clustered VG/LV.
But nevertheless i still need a cluster fs because of
hello, yes, you need ocfs2 or gfs2, but in your case (raw image) probably
better to use lvm
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 18:13, Lentes, Bernd
> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> just to be sure. I thought (maybe i'm wrong) that having a VM on a shared
> storage (FC SAN), e.g. in a raw file on an ext3 fs on
On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 17:43 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > > > Kadlecsik József schrieb am
> > > > 05.09.2018 um
>
> 15:33 in Nachricht i.hu>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For testing purposes one of our nodes was put in standby node and
> > then
> > rebooted several times. When the standby node started
Hi guys,
just to be sure. I thought (maybe i'm wrong) that having a VM on a shared
storage (FC SAN), e.g. in a raw file on an ext3 fs on that SAN allows
live-migration because pacemaker takes care that the ext3 fs is at any time
only mounted on one node. I tried it, but "live"-migration wasn't
On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 17:21 +0200, Cesar Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > P.S. If the issue is just a matter of timing when you're starting
> > both
> > nodes, you can start corosync on both nodes first, then start
> > pacemaker
> > on both nodes. That way pacemaker on each node will immediately see
> >
>>> Ken Gaillot schrieb am 05.09.2018 um 16:13 in
>>> Nachricht
<1536156803.4205.1.ca...@redhat.com>:
[...]
> In the case of stickiness, lib/pengine/complex.c has this code:
>
> (*rsc)->stickiness = 0;
> ...
> value = g_hash_table_lookup((*rsc)->meta, XML_RSC_ATTR_STICKINESS);
>
>>> Kadlecsik József schrieb am 05.09.2018 um
15:33 in Nachricht :
> Hi,
>
> For testing purposes one of our nodes was put in standby node and then
> rebooted several times. When the standby node started up, it joined the
> cluster as a new member and it resulted in transitions between the
>
> P.S. If the issue is just a matter of timing when you're starting both
> nodes, you can start corosync on both nodes first, then start pacemaker
> on both nodes. That way pacemaker on each node will immediately see the
> other node's presence.
> --
Well rebooting a server lasts 2 minutes
On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 09:51 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 16:38 +0200, Cesar Hernandez wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > >
> > > Ah, this rings a bell. Despite having fenced the node, the
> > > cluster
> > > still considers the node unseen. That was a regression in 1.1.14
> > > that
> >
On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 16:38 +0200, Cesar Hernandez wrote:
> Hi
>
> >
> > Ah, this rings a bell. Despite having fenced the node, the cluster
> > still considers the node unseen. That was a regression in 1.1.14
> > that
> > was fixed in 1.1.15. :-(
> >
>
> Oh :( I'm using Pacemaker-1.1.14.
Hi
>
> Ah, this rings a bell. Despite having fenced the node, the cluster
> still considers the node unseen. That was a regression in 1.1.14 that
> was fixed in 1.1.15. :-(
>
Oh :( I'm using Pacemaker-1.1.14.
Do you know if this reboot retries are just run 3 times? All the tests I've
On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 13:31 +0200, Cesar Hernandez wrote:
> Hi
>
> >
> > The first fencing is legitimate -- the node hasn't been seen at
> > start-
> > up, and so needs to be fenced. The second fencing will be the one
> > of
> > interest. Also, look for the result of the first fencing.
>
> The
On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 09:32 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > > > Ken Gaillot schrieb am 04.09.2018 um
> > > > 19:21 in Nachricht
>
> <1536081690.4387.6.ca...@redhat.com>:
> > On Tue, 2018-09-04 at 11:22 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > > > > > In Reply to my message am 30.08.2018 um 12:23 in
Hi,
For testing purposes one of our nodes was put in standby node and then
rebooted several times. When the standby node started up, it joined the
cluster as a new member and it resulted in transitions between the online
nodes. However, when the standby node was rebooted in mid-transitions, it
Hi
>
> The first fencing is legitimate -- the node hasn't been seen at start-
> up, and so needs to be fenced. The second fencing will be the one of
> interest. Also, look for the result of the first fencing.
The first fencing has finished with OK, as well as the other two fencing
operations.
>>> Kristoffer Grönlund schrieb am 04.09.2018 um 16:17 in
Nachricht <1536070650.9365.15.ca...@suse.de>:
> On Tue, 2018‑09‑04 at 16:00 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have a question: Can I use crm shell to configure time‑based
>> meta_attributes without using XML?
>> I tried to
22 matches
Mail list logo
