On Wed, Mar 16, 2016, at 04:00 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 16/03/16 03:59 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> > I am able to create a split brain situation in corosync 1.1.13 using
> > iptables in a 3 node cluster.
> >
> > I have 3 nodes, vmr-132-3, vmr-132-4, and vmr-132-5
> >
> > All nodes are
On 16/03/16 04:04 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016, at 04:00 PM, Digimer wrote:
>> On 16/03/16 03:59 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
>>> I am able to create a split brain situation in corosync 1.1.13 using
>>> iptables in a 3 node cluster.
>>>
>>> I have 3 nodes, vmr-132-3,
I guess I have to say "never mind!" I don't know what the problem was
yesterday, but it loads just fine today, even when the named config and the
virtual ip don't match! But for your edamacation, ifconfig does NOT show the
address although ip addr does:
ip addr
1: lo: mtu
On 03/16/2016 05:49 AM, Lorand Kelemen wrote:
> Dear Ken,
>
> Thanks for the reply! I lowered migration-threshold to 1 and rearranged
> contraints like you suggested:
>
> Location Constraints:
> Ordering Constraints:
> promote mail-clone then start fs-services (kind:Mandatory)
> promote
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, at 06:24 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 03/17/2016 05:10 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> > If I ignore pacemaker's existence, and just run corosync, corosync
> > disagrees about node membership in the situation presented in the first
> > email. While it's true that stonith just
Andrei Borzenkov writes:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Lars Ellenberg
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:47:52PM +0100, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
>>
> And some more about fencing:
>
> 3. What's the difference in cluster behavior
On 18/03/16 09:25 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I'm happy to announce that the booth repository was yesterday
> tagged as v1.0:
>
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/booth/releases/tag/v1.0
>
> There were very few patches since the v1.0 rc1. The complete
> list of changes is