On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 23:43 +0300, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 11.12.2017 23:06, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> [...]
> > > =
> > >
> > > * The first issue I found (and I expect that to be a reason for
> > > some
> > > other issues) is that
> > > pacemaker_remote does not drop an old crmds' connection
FYI:
A couple of regressions have been found in the recent Pacemaker 1.1.18
release.
Fixes for these, plus one finishing an incomplete fix in 1.1.18, are in
the master branch, and have been backported to the 1.1 branch for ease
of patching. It is recommended that anyone compiling or packaging
Hi,
If you want to be active resource on node0 prior to node1, try using
#uname in "location" like this: (example in crmsh)
location some-resource-location some-resource \
rule 100: #uname eq node0 \
rule 50: #uname ne node0
It allows to be active "some-resource" resource on node0
11.12.2017 23:06, Ken Gaillot wrote:
[...]
=
* The first issue I found (and I expect that to be a reason for some
other issues) is that
pacemaker_remote does not drop an old crmds' connection after new
crmd connects.
As IPC proxy connections are in the hash table, there is a 50% chance
that
On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 12:46 +0300, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 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
I guess to simplify this, what is the max latency of corosync multipath?
I have seen a few articles pointing to 2ms is this still the case?
Thanks,
Brad
On 12/04/2017 08:25 AM, Brad Zynda wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was hoping someone could explain the use of thresholds in
> communication between
On 12/10/2017 12:10 PM, Ricardo Cristian Ramirez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have an active-passive pacemaker-corosync configuration.
>
> When a node is powered up before the other one, it becomes active, and
> the node, which is powered up second, becomes passive.
>
> (For a node, being active means
