[ClusterLabs] starting primitive resources of a group without starting the complete group - unclear behaviour

Hi, just for the sake of completeness i'd like to figure out what happens if i start one resource, which is a member of a group, but only this resource. I'd like to see what the other resources of that group are doing. Also if it maybe does not make much sense. Just for learning and

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: lvm on shared storage and a lot of...

On 20/04/17 07:57, Ulrich Windl wrote: lejeczek schrieb am 19.04.2017 um 18:51 in Nachricht : On 18/04/17 15:22, Ulrich Windl wrote: lejeczek schrieb am 18.04.2017 um 16:14 in Nachricht

Re: [ClusterLabs] Instant service restart during failback

On 04/20/2017 10:30 AM, Klechomir wrote: > Hi List, > Been investigating the following problem recently: > > Have two node cluster with 4 cloned (2 on top of 2) + 1 master/slave services > on it (corosync+pacemaker 1.1.15) > The failover works properly for both nodes, i.e. when one node is >

Re: [ClusterLabs] Instant service restart during failback

Hi Klaus, It would have been too easy if it was interleave. All my cloned resoures have interlave=true, of course. What bothers me more is that the behaviour is asymmetrical. Regards, Klecho On 20.4.2017 10:43:29 Klaus Wenninger wrote: > On 04/20/2017 10:30 AM, Klechomir wrote: > > Hi List, > >

[ClusterLabs] Instant service restart during failback

Hi List, Been investigating the following problem recently: Have two node cluster with 4 cloned (2 on top of 2) + 1 master/slave services on it (corosync+pacemaker 1.1.15) The failover works properly for both nodes, i.e. when one node is restarted/turned in standby, the other properly takes

Re: [ClusterLabs] Wtrlt: Antw: Re: Antw: Re: how important would you consider to have two independent fencing device for each node ?

On 04/20/2017 01:43 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: > Should have gone to the list... > > Digimer schrieb am 19.04.2017 um 17:20 in Nachricht >> <600637f1-fef8-0a3d-821c-7aecfa398...@alteeve.ca>: >>> On 19/04/17 02:38 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>> Digimer

[ClusterLabs] Colocation of a primitive resource with a clone with limited copies

Hello, my problem is closely related to the thread [1], but I didn't find a solution there. I have a resource that is set up as a clone C restricted to two copies (using the clone-max=2 meta attribute||), because the resource takes long time to get ready (it starts immediately though), and

[ClusterLabs] Digest does not match

Hi folks, We have a lot of our two-node systems running in our server room. I noticed that some of them occasionally have this entries in the syslog: Mar 15 12:54:45 A5-E4-151-bottom corosync[13766]: [TOTEM ] Digest does not match Mar 15 12:54:45 A5-E4-151-bottom corosync[13766]: [TOTEM ]

Re: [ClusterLabs] Colocation of a primitive resource with a clone with limited copies

On 04/20/2017 10:52 AM, Jan Wrona wrote: > Hello, > > my problem is closely related to the thread [1], but I didn't find a > solution there. I have a resource that is set up as a clone C restricted > to two copies (using the clone-max=2 meta attribute||), because the > resource takes long time to

[ClusterLabs] Wtrlt: Antw: Re: Antw: Re: how important would you consider to have two independent fencing device for each node ?

Should have gone to the list... Digimer schrieb am 19.04.2017 um 17:20 in Nachricht > <600637f1-fef8-0a3d-821c-7aecfa398...@alteeve.ca>: > > On 19/04/17 02:38 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: > > Digimer schrieb am 18.04.2017 um 19:08 in Nachricht > >>