Re: [ClusterLabs] New website design and new-new logo

On 2017-09-20 07:53 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > Hi everybody, > > We've started a major update of the ClusterLabs web design. The main > goal (besides making it look more modern) is to make the top-level more > about all ClusterLabs projects rather than Pacemaker-specific. It's > also much more

[ClusterLabs] New website design and new-new logo

Hi everybody, We've started a major update of the ClusterLabs web design. The main goal (besides making it look more modern) is to make the top-level more about all ClusterLabs projects rather than Pacemaker-specific. It's also much more mobile-friendly. We've also updated our new logo --

Re: [ClusterLabs] some resources move after recovery

On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 10:08 +, Roberto Muñoz Gomez wrote: > Hi, > > > I don't know why if one of the two nodes is rebooted, when the node > is back, some of the resources move to it despite default-resource- > stickiness=100 and the resources have failcount=0 and there is no > constraint

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker 1.1.18 deprecation warnings

On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 11:48 +0200, Ferenc Wágner wrote: > Ken Gaillot writes: > > > * undocumented LRMD_MAX_CHILDREN environment variable > > (PCMK_node_action_limit is the current syntax) > > By the way, is the current syntax documented somewhere?  Looking at

[ClusterLabs] some resources move after recovery

Hi, I don't know why if one of the two nodes is rebooted, when the node is back, some of the resources move to it despite default-resource-stickiness=100 and the resources have failcount=0 and there is no constraint influencing that change. By some I mean sometimes 1, other 90, other

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker 1.1.18 deprecation warnings

Ken Gaillot writes: > * undocumented LRMD_MAX_CHILDREN environment variable > (PCMK_node_action_limit is the current syntax) By the way, is the current syntax documented somewhere? Looking at crmd/throttle.c, throttle_update_job_max() is only ever invoked with a NULL

[ClusterLabs] pcmk_remote evaluation (continued)

Hi, as 1.1.17 received a lot of care in pcmk_remote, I decided to try it again in rather big setup (less then previous, so I'm not hit by IPC disconnects here). >From the first runs there are still some severe issues when cluster nodes are >fenced. The following results are obtained by

Re: [ClusterLabs] can't create master/slave resource

On 09/20/2017 10:40 AM, Tiemen Ruiten wrote: > Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. We will look for > another way to determine master/slave status of this application then. What you still could try is to write kind of an ocf-wrapper for your systemd-service so that you can leave

Re: [ClusterLabs] can't create master/slave resource

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. We will look for another way to determine master/slave status of this application then. On 20 September 2017 at 09:20, Tomas Jelinek wrote: > > > Dne 20.9.2017 v 09:03 Tomas Jelinek napsal(a): > >> Hi, >> >> systemd

Re: [ClusterLabs] can't create master/slave resource

Dne 20.9.2017 v 09:03 Tomas Jelinek napsal(a): Hi, systemd resources cannot be used as master/slave resources. In order to use a resource as a master/slave, the resource must support promote and demote actions [1], which systemd resources don't. # pcs resource create test systemd:postfix

Re: [ClusterLabs] can't create master/slave resource

Hi, systemd resources cannot be used as master/slave resources. In order to use a resource as a master/slave, the resource must support promote and demote actions [1], which systemd resources don't. # pcs resource create test systemd:postfix # pcs resource master test # pcs cluster verify -V