neeraj ch napsal(a):
Hello ,
We are testing out corosync and pacemaker for DB high availability on the
cloud. I was able to set up a cluster with in a DC using corosync 1.4 and
pacemaker 1.12. It works great and I wanted to try a cross DC cluster. I
was using unicast as multicast was disabled by
Hi,
On 10/10/2016 10:46 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
Hi!
I observed an interesting thing: In a three node cluster (SLES11 SP4) with cLVM
and OCFS2 on top, one node was fenced as the OCFS2 filesystem was somehow busy
on unmount. We have (for paranoid reasons mainly) an excessive long fencing
timou
On 10/13/2016 09:30 AM, Jan Friesse wrote:
> neeraj ch napsal(a):
>> Hello ,
>>
>> We are testing out corosync and pacemaker for DB high availability on
>> the
>> cloud. I was able to set up a cluster with in a DC using corosync 1.4
>> and
>> pacemaker 1.12. It works great and I wanted to try a cro
Hi,
On 10/11/2016 02:18 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
{ emmanuel segura schrieb am 10.10.2016 um 16:49 in
Nachricht
:
Node h01 (old DC) was fenced at Oct 10 10:06:33
Node h01 went down around Oct 10 10:06:37.
DLM noticed that on node h05:
Oct 10 10:06:44 h05 cluster-dlm[12063]: dlm_process_no
>>> Eric Ren schrieb am 13.10.2016 um 09:31 in Nachricht
:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/10/2016 10:46 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I observed an interesting thing: In a three node cluster (SLES11 SP4) with
> cLVM and OCFS2 on top, one node was fenced as the OCFS2 filesystem was
> somehow busy on unm
If you want to reduce the multipath switching time, when one
controller goes down
https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2009-April/msg00266.html
2016-10-13 10:27 GMT+02:00 Ulrich Windl :
Eric Ren schrieb am 13.10.2016 um 09:31 in Nachricht
> :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/10/2016 10:46 PM, Ulrich W
>>> Eric Ren schrieb am 13.10.2016 um 09:48 in Nachricht
<73f764d0-75e7-122f-ff4e-d0b27dbdd...@suse.com>:
[...]
>> When assuming node h01 still lived when communication failed, wouldn't
> quorum prevent h01 from doing anything with DLM and OCFS2 anyway?
> Not sure I understand you correctly. By d
Hi,
On 10/13/2016 04:36 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
Eric Ren schrieb am 13.10.2016 um 09:48 in Nachricht
<73f764d0-75e7-122f-ff4e-d0b27dbdd...@suse.com>:
[...]
When assuming node h01 still lived when communication failed, wouldn't
quorum prevent h01 from doing anything with DLM and OCFS2 anyway?
Hi,
On 10/13/2016 04:27 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
So I'm wondering why it takes so long to finish the fencing process?
As I wrote: Using SBD this is paranoia (as fencing doesn't report back a status like
"completed" or "failed". Actually the fencing only needs a few seconds, but the
timeout is
Hi,
I have 5 nodes and 4 resources configured.
I have configured constraint such that no two resources can be co-located.
I brought down a node (which happened to be DC). I was expecting the
resource on the failed node would be migrated to the 5th waiting node (that
is not running any resource).
H
Additional info,
-Nikhil
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Nikhil Utane
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have 5 nodes and 4 resources configured.
> I have configured constraint such that no two resources can be co-located.
> I brought down a node (which happened to be DC). I was expecting the
> resource on
Hi!
Don't you need 10 constraints, excluding every possible pair of your 5
resources (named A-E here), like in this table (produced with R):
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
[1,] "A" "A" "A" "A" "B" "B" "B" "C" "C" "D"
[2,] "B" "C" "D" "E" "C" "D" "E" "D"
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Nikhil Utane
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have 5 nodes and 4 resources configured.
> I have configured constraint such that no two resources can be co-located.
> I brought down a node (which happened to be DC). I was expecting the
> resource on the failed node would be migra
Ulrich,
I have 4 resources only (not 5, nodes are 5). So then I only need 6
constraints, right?
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6]
[1,] "A" "A" "A""B" "B""C"
[2,] "B" "C" "D" "C" "D""D"
I understand that if I configure constraint of R1 with R2 score as
-infinity, th
On 10/13/2016 03:36 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> That's what I'm talking about: If 1 of 3 nodes is rebooting (or the cluster
> is split-brain 1:2), the single node CANNOT continue due to lack of quorum,
> while the remaining two nodes can. Is it still necessary to wait for
> completion of stonith?
Andrei,
*"It would help if you told which node and which resources, so
your configuration could be interpreted in context. "*
Any resource can run on any node as long as it is not running any other
resource.
*"so "a not with b" does not imply "b not with a". So first pacemaker
decided where to p
Summary: Two-node cluster setup with latest pgsql resource agent. Postgresql starts initially, but failover never happens.Details:I'm trying to get a cluster set up with Postgresql 9.6 in a streaming replication using named slots scenario. I'm using the latest pgsql Resource Agent, which does appea
On 10/13/2016 12:04 PM, Israel Brewster wrote:
> Summary: Two-node cluster setup with latest pgsql resource agent.
> Postgresql starts initially, but failover never happens.
>
> Details:
>
> I'm trying to get a cluster set up with Postgresql 9.6 in a streaming
> replication using named slots scen
On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>
> On 10/13/2016 12:04 PM, Israel Brewster wrote:
>> Summary: Two-node cluster setup with latest pgsql resource agent.
>> Postgresql starts initially, but failover never happens.
>>
>> Details:
>>
>> I'm trying to get a cluster set up with Postgr
Hello
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
In my setup the public IP is not on the box , the box is attached to a
private network and packets to the public IP I think are just forwarded to
the private IP.
When I tried using the local private address as the bind address , public
address as
Corosync does not work with NAT. At least I tried for AGES and could not
get it to.
Easiest is to set up a VPN between the sites or servers for just the
corosync traffic.
On 13.10.2016 22:14, neeraj ch wrote:
> Hello
>
> Thank you for taking the time to respond.
>
> In my setup the public IP
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:05:33 -0800
Israel Brewster wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> >
> > On 10/13/2016 12:04 PM, Israel Brewster wrote:
[...]
> >> But whatever- this is a cluster, it doesn't really matter which node
> >> things are running on, as long as they are
On Oct 13, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:05:33 -0800
> Israel Brewster wrote:
>
>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2016 12:04 PM, Israel Brewster wrote:
> [...]
>
But whatever- this is a cluster, it do
23 matches
Mail list logo
