On 11/09/2016 12:27 PM, CART Andreas wrote:
> Hi again
>
>
>
> Sorry for missing the omission of the master role within the colocation
> constraint.
>
> I added it - but unfortunately still no success.
>
>
>
> (In the meantime I added 2 additional filesystem resources on top of the
>
On 11/10/2016 11:34 AM, Kostiantyn Ponomarenko wrote:
> Ulrich Windl,
>
> >> You want your resources to move to their preferred location after
> some problem.
> It is not about that. It is about - I want to control when fail-back
> happens. And I want to be sure that I have full control over it
Ulrich Windl,
>> You want your resources to move to their preferred location after some
problem.
It is not about that. It is about - I want to control when fail-back
happens. And I want to be sure that I have full control over it all the
time.
Klaus Wenninger,
You are right. That is exactly
On 11/10/2016 09:47 AM, Toni Tschampke wrote:
>> Did your upgrade documentation describe how to update the corosync
>> configuration, and did that go well? crmd may be unable to function due
>> to lack of quorum information.
>
> Thanks for this tip, corosync quorum configuration was the cause.
>
>
On 11/10/2016 08:27 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
Klaus Wenninger schrieb am 09.11.2016 um 17:42 in
> Nachricht <80c65564-b299-e504-4c6c-afd0ff86e...@redhat.com>:
>> On 11/09/2016 05:30 PM, Kostiantyn Ponomarenko wrote:
>>> When one problem seems to be solved, another one
Did your upgrade documentation describe how to update the corosync
configuration, and did that go well? crmd may be unable to function due
to lack of quorum information.
Thanks for this tip, corosync quorum configuration was the cause.
As we changed validate-with as well as the feature set
>>> Eric Robinson schrieb am 10.11.2016 um 09:18 in
Nachricht
> I can't believe I'm still unclear in this, but the behavior seems to be
> different with different versions of Pacemaker.
>