Re: [ClusterLabs] Announcing hawk-apiserver, now in ClusterLabs

2019-02-13 Thread xin
Currently the set of REST API support these GET methods: /api/v1/configuration/cluster_property /api/v1/configuration/rsc_defaults /api/v1/configuration/op_defaults /api/v1/configuration/resources /api/v1/configuration/resources/:id /api/v1/configuration/primitives

Re: [ClusterLabs] Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

2019-02-13 Thread Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 22:11:50 +0300 Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > 13.02.2019 15:50, Maciej S пишет: > > Can you describe at least one situation when it could happen? > > I see situations where data on two masters can diverge but I can't find the > > one where data gets corrupted. > > If diverged

Re: [ClusterLabs] Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

2019-02-13 Thread Andrei Borzenkov
13.02.2019 15:50, Maciej S пишет: > Can you describe at least one situation when it could happen? > I see situations where data on two masters can diverge but I can't find the > one where data gets corrupted. If diverged data in two databases that are supposed to be exact copy of each other is

Re: [ClusterLabs] ERROR: This Target already exists in configFS

2019-02-13 Thread Bryan K. Walton
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 02:14:17PM -0600, Bryan K. Walton wrote: > I'm giving it the following commands: > > pcs resource create targetRHEVM ocf:heartbeat:iSCSITarget \ > iqn="iqn.2019-02.com.leepfrog:storage.rhevm" \ > allowed_initiators="iqn.1994-05.com.redhat:3d066d1f423e \ >

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

2019-02-13 Thread Ken Gaillot
On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 16:29 +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote: > Hi! > > I wonder: Can we close this thread with "You have been warned, so > please don't > come back later, crying! In the meantime you can do what you want to > do."? > > Regards, > Ulrich Sure, that should be on the wiki :) But to give

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

2019-02-13 Thread Klaus Wenninger
On 02/13/2019 04:29 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote: > Hi! > > I wonder: Can we close this thread with "You have been warned, so please don't > come back later, crying! In the meantime you can do what you want to do."? I think something like the answer of digimer is the better and more general advise: If

[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

2019-02-13 Thread Ulrich Windl
Hi! I wonder: Can we close this thread with "You have been warned, so please don't come back later, crying! In the meantime you can do what you want to do."? Regards, Ulrich >>> Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais schrieb am 13.02.2019 um 15:05 in Nachricht <20190213150549.47634671@firost>: > On Wed,

Re: [ClusterLabs] Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

2019-02-13 Thread Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:50:17 +0100 Maciej S wrote: > Can you describe at least one situation when it could happen? > I see situations where data on two masters can diverge but I can't find the > one where data gets corrupted. Or maybe you think that some kind of > restoration is required in case

Re: [ClusterLabs] Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

2019-02-13 Thread Maciej S
Can you describe at least one situation when it could happen? I see situations where data on two masters can diverge but I can't find the one where data gets corrupted. Or maybe you think that some kind of restoration is required in case of diverged data, but this is not my use case (I can live

Re: [ClusterLabs] Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

2019-02-13 Thread Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:02:30 +0100 Maciej S wrote: > Thank you all for the answers. I can see your point, but anyway it seems > that fencing is like for additional precaution. It's not. > If my requirements allow some manual intervention in some cases (eg. > unknown resource state after

Re: [ClusterLabs] Is fencing really a must for Postgres failover?

2019-02-13 Thread Maciej S
Thank you all for the answers. I can see your point, but anyway it seems that fencing is like for additional precaution. If my requirements allow some manual intervention in some cases (eg. unknown resource state after failover), then I might go ahead without fencing. At least until STONITH is not

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Announcing hawk-apiserver, now in ClusterLabs

2019-02-13 Thread Adam Spiers
Ulrich Windl wrote: Hello! I'd like to comment as an "old" SuSE customer: I'm amazed that lighttpd is dropped in favor of some new go application: SuSE now has a base system that needs (correct me if I'm wrong): shell, perl, python, java, go, ruby, ...? Sorry for the off-topic nitpick, but

Re: [ClusterLabs] fence_azure_arm flooding syslog

2019-02-13 Thread Oyvind Albrigtsen
That's weird. I initially tested it in US East 2. I'd check that the packages/versions for python-azure-sdk, python-msrest, python-msrestazure, python-keyring, etc are the same on your nodes in Europe vs US locations. If they are the same you could create a support ticket on Azure to ask if

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Announcing hawk-apiserver, now in ClusterLabs

2019-02-13 Thread Kristoffer Grönlund
Ulrich Windl writes: > Hello! > > I'd like to comment as an "old" SuSE customer: > I'm amazed that lighttpd is dropped in favor of some new go application: > SuSE now has a base system that needs (correct me if I'm wrong): shell, perl, > python, java, go, ruby, ...? > Oh, that list is a lot