And whatabout SBD (a.k.a. poison pill). I've used it reliably with 3 SBDs
on a streched cluster. Neverr failed to kill the node.
Best Regards,
Strahil Nikolov
На 14 юли 2020 г. 14:18:56 GMT+03:00, Rohit Saini
написа:
>I dont think my question was very clear. I am strictly NO for
14.07.2020 13:19, Rohit Saini пишет:
> Also, " Keep in mind that neither qdevice nor booth is "replacement" for
> stonith. "
>
> Why not? qdevice/booth are handling the split-brain scenario, keeping one
> master only even in case of local/geo network disjoints. Can you please
> clarify more on
14.07.2020 14:56, Grégory Sacré пишет:
> Dear all,
>
>
> I'm pretty new to Pacemaker so I must be missing something but I cannot find
> it in the documentation.
>
> I'm setting up a SAMBA File Server cluster with DRBD and Pacemaker. Here are
> the relevant pcs commands related to the mount
Dear all,
I'm pretty new to Pacemaker so I must be missing something but I cannot find it
in the documentation.
I'm setting up a SAMBA File Server cluster with DRBD and Pacemaker. Here are
the relevant pcs commands related to the mount part:
user $ sudo pcs cluster cib fs_cfg
user $ sudo pcs
All,
We are pleased to announce the general availability of kronosnet v1.18
kronosnet (or knet for short) is the new underlying network protocol for
Linux HA components (corosync), that features the ability to use
multiple links between nodes, active/active and active/passive link
failover
Hey all,
please hold your horses in packaging 1.17. I just found out that we
forgot to bump the soname for libknet (new symbols).
I am pushing the fix via CI and a 1.18 release will follow as soon as
possible.
Cheers
Fabio
On 7/14/2020 4:03 PM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
All,
We are
All,
We are pleased to announce the general availability of kronosnet v1.17
kronosnet (or knet for short) is the new underlying network protocol for
Linux HA components (corosync), that features the ability to use
multiple links between nodes, active/active and active/passive link
failover
>>> Rohit Saini schrieb am 14.07.2020 um 13:52
>>> in
Nachricht
:
> Thanks Honza. I guess qnetd+booth will be best in my case as you also
> suggested.
Actually I just wonder if "best" still does prevent data corruption.
There are many creative ways for data corruption. Some years ago we had a
Thanks Honza. I guess qnetd+booth will be best in my case as you also
suggested.
Regards,
Rohit
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:19 PM Jan Friesse wrote:
> Rohit,
>
> > I dont think my question was very clear. I am strictly NO for STONITH.
> > STONITH is limited only for kvm or HP machines. That's
Rohit,
I dont think my question was very clear. I am strictly NO for STONITH.
STONITH is limited only for kvm or HP machines. That's the reason I don't
Nope, stonith is not limited only for KVM or HP machine. There is huge
amount of fence agents for various HW and VMs
I dont think my question was very clear. I am strictly NO for STONITH.
STONITH is limited only for kvm or HP machines. That's the reason I don't
want to use STONITH.
What my question is can I use booth with nodes of a single cluster also
(similar to qdevice)? So idea is to use booth arbitrator for
Rohit,
Also, " Keep in mind that neither qdevice nor booth is "replacement" for
stonith. "
Why not? qdevice/booth are handling the split-brain scenario, keeping one
master only even in case of local/geo network disjoints. Can you please
clarify more on this.
Yeah, you are right. I don't
Rohit,
Thanks Honja. That's helpful.
Let's say I don't use qnetd, can I achieve same with booth arbitrator?
That means to have two two-node clusters. Two-node cluster without
fencing is strictly no.
Booth arbitrator works for geo-clusters, can the same arbitrator be reused
for local
Also, " Keep in mind that neither qdevice nor booth is "replacement" for
stonith. "
Why not? qdevice/booth are handling the split-brain scenario, keeping one
master only even in case of local/geo network disjoints. Can you please
clarify more on this.
Thanks,
Rohit
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:40
Thanks Honja. That's helpful.
Let's say I don't use qnetd, can I achieve same with booth arbitrator?
Booth arbitrator works for geo-clusters, can the same arbitrator be reused
for local clusters as well?
Is it even possible technically?
Regards,
Rohit
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:32 PM Jan Friesse
Hi Oyvind,
thank you for reply!
Iinteresting, but not simple...
I did some tests with ocf_heartbeat_anything and the simple start and stop
seems to work correctly.
Would it be possible to create two opposite "services" with this ocf?
Example:
NODE1 (Master) service-master (START) &
Rohit,
Hi Team,
Can I execute corosync-qnetd and booth-arbitrator on the same VM in a
different geo site? What's the recommendation? Will it have any limitations
in a production deployment?
There is no technical limitation. Both qnetd and booth are very
lightweight and work just fine with
You should be able to make your custom agent by following this doc:
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/resource-agents/blob/master/doc/dev-guides/ra-dev-guide.asc
Oyvind
On 13/07/20 10:08 +0200, Sim wrote:
Hi,
I need to create a cluster with these characteristics:
NODE1 (Master)
NODE2 (Slave)
Hello,
Am 09.07.2020 um 19:10 Strahil Nikolov wrote:
>Have you run 'fence_virtd -c' ?
Yes I had run that on both Hosts. The current config looks like that and
is identical on both.
cat fence_virt.conf
fence_virtd {
listener = "multicast";
backend = "libvirt";
19 matches
Mail list logo
