Thanks, got it.
So, is it better to use "two_node: 1" or, as suggested else where, or
"no-quorum-policy=stop"?
About fencing, the machine I'm going to implement the 2-nodes cluster is a dual
machine with shared disks backend.
Each node has two 10Gb ethernets dedicated to the public ip and the
On 08/30/2016 05:18 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 09:00:24AM -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On 08/17/2016 08:17 PM, TEG AMJG wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I am having a problem with a simple Active/Passive cluster which
>>> consists in the next configuration
>>>
>>> Cluster
On 08/30/2016 01:58 PM, chenhj wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a continuation of the email below(I did not subscrib this maillist)
>
> http://clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/2016-August/003838.html
>
>>>From the above, I suspect that the node with the network loss was the
>>DC, and from its point of
On 08/30/2016 01:52 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> Sorry for reiterating, but my main question was:
>
> why does node 1 removes its own IP if I shut down node 2 abruptly?
> I understand that it does not take the node 2 IP (because the
> ssh-fencing has no clue about what happened on the 2nd node),
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > Also remember that sometimes we set a "local" variable in a function
> > and expect it to be visible in nested functions, but also set a new
> > value in a nested function and expect that value to be reflected
> > in the outer
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:53:24PM +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:15:49PM +0200, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:08:00AM -0500, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
> > > On 2016-08-30 03:44, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > >
> > > >The kernel reads the shebang
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:32:36PM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 08/30/2016 11:15 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>
> > I suppose that it is explained in enough detail here:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebang_(Unix)
>
> I expect you're being deliberately obtuse.
Not sure why do you
Hi,
This is a continuation of the email below(I did not subscrib this maillist)
http://clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/2016-August/003838.html
>>From the above, I suspect that the node with the network loss was the
>DC, and from its point of view, it was the other node that went away.
Yes.
