Klaus,
Thanks for the infor!
Did you mean i should compile sbd from github source to include the fixs you
mentioned by myself?
The corosync, pacemaker and sbd version in my setup is as below:
corosync: 2.3.6-9.13.1
pacemaker: 1.1.16-6.5.1
sbd: 1.3.1+20180507
Regards
Fulong
On Mon, 2019-02-11 at 22:48 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> On 20/01/19 12:44 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> > On 18/01/19 20:32 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> > > It was discovered that this release of glib project changed
> > > sligthly
> > > some parameters of how distribution of values within hash
On 11/02/19 15:03 -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 08:10 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>> On 28/01/19 09:47 -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 18:04 +0530, Dileep V Nair wrote:
>>> Pacemaker can handle the clock jumping forward, but not backward.
>>
>> I am rather
On 20/01/19 12:44 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> On 18/01/19 20:32 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>> It was discovered that this release of glib project changed sligthly
>> some parameters of how distribution of values within hash tables
>> structures work, undermining pacemaker's hard (alas unfeasible)
On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 08:10 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> On 28/01/19 09:47 -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 18:04 +0530, Dileep V Nair wrote:
> > Pacemaker can handle the clock jumping forward, but not backward.
>
> I am rather surprised, are we not using monotonic time only,
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:14:53 -0500
Digimer wrote:
> On 2019-02-11 1:04 p.m., Digimer wrote:
> > On 2019-02-11 12:34 p.m., Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:54:03 -0500
> >> Digimer wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Also, with pacemaker v2, fencing (stonith) became
On 2019-02-11 1:04 p.m., Digimer wrote:
> On 2019-02-11 12:34 p.m., Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:54:03 -0500
>> Digimer wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Also, with pacemaker v2, fencing (stonith) became mandatory at a
>>> programmatic level.
>>
>> ORLY? What did I missed?
>>
>
On 2019-02-11 12:34 p.m., Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:54:03 -0500
> Digimer wrote:
> [...]
>> Also, with pacemaker v2, fencing (stonith) became mandatory at a
>> programmatic level.
>
> ORLY? What did I missed?
>
It was announced at the last HA summit by Andrew
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:54:03 -0500
Digimer wrote:
[...]
> Also, with pacemaker v2, fencing (stonith) became mandatory at a
> programmatic level.
ORLY? What did I missed?
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
On 2019-02-11 6:34 a.m., Maciej S wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone can give a plain answer if fencing is really
> needed in case there are no shared resources being used (as far as I
> define shared resource).
>
> We want to use PAF or other Postgres (with replicated data files on the
> local
Hi Oyvind,
Debug mode doesn't help me. The error occurs after successfully getting
Bearer token. No other issues are shown:
DEBUG:requests_oauthlib.oauth2_session:Invoking 0 token response hooks.
2019-02-11 15:27:12,687 DEBUG: Invoking 0 token response hooks.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:34:44 +0100
Maciej S wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone can give a plain answer if fencing is really
> needed in case there are no shared resources being used (as far as I define
> shared resource).
>
> We want to use PAF or other Postgres (with replicated data files on
>>> Maciej S schrieb am 11.02.2019 um 12:34 in Nachricht
:
> I was wondering if anyone can give a plain answer if fencing is really
> needed in case there are no shared resources being used (as far as I define
> shared resource).
>
> We want to use PAF or other Postgres (with replicated data
You can try adding verbose=1 and see if that gives you some more
details on where it's failing.
On 11/02/19 14:47 +0100, Thomas Berreis wrote:
We need this feature because shutdown / reboot takes too much time ( > 5
min) and network fencing fences the virtual machine much faster ( < 5 sec).
We
We need this feature because shutdown / reboot takes too much time ( > 5
min) and network fencing fences the virtual machine much faster ( < 5 sec).
We finished all the required steps and network fencing works as expected but
I'm still confused about these errors in the log and the failure counts
Oh. Thanks for clarifying.
Network-fencing requires extra setup as explained if you run "pcs stonith
resource describe fence_azure_arm".
You probably dont need network-fencing, so you can just skip that
part.
On 11/02/19 13:50 +0100, Thomas Berreis wrote:
It seems like the issue might be the
> It seems like the issue might be the space in "pcmk_host_list= node01".
Sorry, this typo was only in my mail because I anonymized in- and output.
The issue only occurs when I add the parameter "network-fencing=on".
WARNING:msrestazure.azure_active_directory:Keyring cache token has failed:
No
I was wondering if anyone can give a plain answer if fencing is really
needed in case there are no shared resources being used (as far as I define
shared resource).
We want to use PAF or other Postgres (with replicated data files on the
local drives) failover agent together with Corosync,
On 02/11/2019 09:49 AM, Fulong Wang wrote:
> Thanks Yan,
>
> You gave me more valuable hints on the SBD operation!
> Now, i can see the verbose output after service restart.
>
>
> >Be aware since pacemaker integration (-P) is enabled by default, which
> >means despite the sbd failure, if the node
pcmk_host_list is used by Pacemaker to limit which hosts can be fenced
by the STONITH device, so you'll have to use the plug parameter for
testing. Pacemaker uses it internally when it fences a host, so you
wouldnt use plug= as part of the pcs stonith create command.
It seems like the issue
Thanks Yan,
You gave me more valuable hints on the SBD operation!
Now, i can see the verbose output after service restart.
>Be aware since pacemaker integration (-P) is enabled by default, which
>means despite the sbd failure, if the node itself was clean and
>"healthy" from pacemaker's point
21 matches
Mail list logo
