>>> "Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> schrieb am 09.02.2021 um 15:00 in Nachricht <60229563020000a10003e...@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>: > Hi! > > I had made a mistake, leading to node h16 to be fenced. After recovery (h16
> had re‑joined the cluster) I had stopped the node, reconfigured the network, > then started the node again. > Then I did the same thing (not the unwanted fencing) with h18. When I > started the node again, I saw these unexpected messages: > > Feb 09 14:50:18 h18 pacemaker‑fenced[31326]: warning: received pending > action we are supposed to be the owner but it's not in our records ‑> fail it > Feb 09 14:50:18 h18 pacemaker‑fenced[31326]: error: Operation 'reboot' > targeting h16 on <no‑one> for pacemaker‑controld.9087@h18.ad643f10: No route to > host > Feb 09 14:50:18 h18 pacemaker‑fenced[31326]: error: stonith_construct_reply: > Triggered assert at fenced_commands.c:2363 : request != NULL > Feb 09 14:50:18 h18 pacemaker‑fenced[31326]: warning: Can't create a sane > reply > Feb 09 14:50:18 h18 pacemaker‑controld[31330]: notice: Peer h16 was not > terminated (reboot) by <anyone> on behalf of pacemaker‑controld.9087: No route > to host > > On the "No route to host": I could ping h16 from h18 using the host name > without any problem. > > Two points: > Why would h18 think h16 should be fenced? > The gailed asserztion looks like a programming error. "failed assertion", sorry! > > Explanations? > > Regards, > Ulrich > > > > _______________________________________________ > Manage your subscription: > https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/ _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
