On 16/04/19 12:38 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> We are adding a "crm_rule" command
Wouldn't `pcmk-rule` be a more sensible command name -- I mean, why not
to benefit from not suffering the historical burden in this case, given
that `crm` in the broadest "almost anything that can be associated with
Hi!
Reading the corosync.conf manual page of corosync 2.3.6 (SLES12 SP4), I have
some random comments:
The tag indent for "clear_node_high_bit" seems broken.
Ack, should be fixed
Shouldn't "hold" be "token_hold"? Why is "token_retransmits_before_loss_const" so long
(why the "_const")?
Hi,
It seems that ldap timeout caused cluster failure. Cluster is checking
status every 15s on master and 16s on slave. Cluster needs postgres user
for authentication, but ldap first query user on ldap server and then
localy on host. When connection to ldap server was interrupted, cluster
couldn't
Hi!
After some tweaking past updating SLES11 to SLES12 I build a new config file
for corosync.
Corosync is happy, pacemaker says the nodes are online, but the cluster status
still says both nodes are "UNCLEAN (offline)". Why?
Messages I see are:
crmd: info: peer_update_callback:Client
Dne 23. 04. 19 v 13:26 Ulrich Windl napsal(a):
Tomas Jelinek schrieb am 23.04.2019 um 12:36 in
Nachricht
:
The files are listed as ghost files in order to let rpm know they belong
to pcs but are not distributed in rpm packages. Those files are created
by pcsd in runtime. I guess the 000
>>> Tomas Jelinek schrieb am 23.04.2019 um 12:36 in
Nachricht
:
> The files are listed as ghost files in order to let rpm know they belong
> to pcs but are not distributed in rpm packages. Those files are created
> by pcsd in runtime. I guess the 000 permissions come from the fact those
>
The files are listed as ghost files in order to let rpm know they belong
to pcs but are not distributed in rpm packages. Those files are created
by pcsd in runtime. I guess the 000 permissions come from the fact those
files are not present in rpm packages.
The real permissions you have look
Hi!
Fighting with the cahnges between corosync 1 (SLES11 SP4) and corosync 2
(SLES12 SP4), I got some "funny" error message:
corosync[13979]: [MAIN ] parse error in config: The token hold timeout
parameter (16 ms) may not be less than (30 ms).
The funny part is that "hold" is not set at all
Hi!
Reading the corosync.conf manual page of corosync 2.3.6 (SLES12 SP4), I have
some random comments:
The tag indent for "clear_node_high_bit" seems broken.
Shouldn't "hold" be "token_hold"? Why is "token_retransmits_before_loss_const"
so long (why the "_const")?
The description states
Dne 21. 04. 19 v 15:46 Andrei Borzenkov napsal(a):
21.04.2019 16:32, Lentes, Bernd пишет:
- Am 21. Apr 2019 um 6:51 schrieb Andrei Borzenkov arvidj...@gmail.com:
20.04.2019 22:29, Lentes, Bernd пишет:
- Am 18. Apr 2019 um 16:21 schrieb kgaillot kgail...@redhat.com:
Simply
>>> Christopher Lumens schrieb am 18.04.2019 um 17:07 in
Nachricht <2044533839.17332252.1555600059522.javamail.zim...@redhat.com>:
>> As XML is only as good as ist structure, would you present the structure
of
>> such XML output?
>
> If you enjoy reading XML that describes XML, you can check
11 matches
Mail list logo
