18.08.2020 22:49, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
>>> What I'm not sure about is how watchdog-only sbd would behave as a
>>> fail-back method for a regular fence device. Will the cluster wait for
>>> the sbd timeout no matter what, or only if the regular fencing fails,
>>> or ...?
>>>
>> Diskless SBD
On 8/18/20 9:07 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 18.08.2020 17:02, Ken Gaillot пишет:
>> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 08:21 +0200, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
>>> On 8/18/20 7:49 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
17.08.2020 23:39, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais пишет:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:19:45 -0500
>
18.08.2020 17:02, Ken Gaillot пишет:
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 08:21 +0200, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
>> On 8/18/20 7:49 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>> 17.08.2020 23:39, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais пишет:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:19:45 -0500
Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-08-14 at
On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 08:21 +0200, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> On 8/18/20 7:49 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > 17.08.2020 23:39, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais пишет:
> > > On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:19:45 -0500
> > > Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:09 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:21:50 +0200
Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> On 8/18/20 7:49 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > 17.08.2020 23:39, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais пишет:
> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:19:45 -0500
> >> Ken Gaillot wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:09 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon
On 8/18/20 7:49 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 17.08.2020 23:39, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais пишет:
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:19:45 -0500
>> Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:09 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
Thanks to all your suggestions, I now have the systems with stonith
17.08.2020 23:39, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais пишет:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:19:45 -0500
> Ken Gaillot wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:09 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
>>> Thanks to all your suggestions, I now have the systems with stonith
>>> configured on ipmi.
>>
>> A word of caution:
On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 22:39 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:19:45 -0500
> Ken Gaillot wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:09 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> > > Thanks to all your suggestions, I now have the systems with
> > > stonith
> > > configured on
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:19:45 -0500
Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:09 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> > Thanks to all your suggestions, I now have the systems with stonith
> > configured on ipmi.
>
> A word of caution: if the IPMI is on-board -- i.e. it shares the same
> power
t;
>
> Da: Gabriele Bulfon
> A: Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering
> welcomed
> Data: 29 luglio 2020 14.22.42 CEST
> Oggetto: Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
>
>
> >
> > It is a ZFS based illumos system.
&
On 8/17/20 9:19 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 17.08.2020 10:06, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
Alternatively, you can set up corosync-qdevice, using a separate system
running qnetd server as a quorum arbitrator.
>>> Any solution that is based on node suicide is prone to complete cluster
>>>
17.08.2020 10:06, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
>>
>>> Alternatively, you can set up corosync-qdevice, using a separate system
>>> running qnetd server as a quorum arbitrator.
>>>
>> Any solution that is based on node suicide is prone to complete cluster
>> loss. In particular, in two node cluster with
On 8/16/20 11:40 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 16.08.2020 04:25, Reid Wahl пишет:
>>
>>> - considering that I have both nodes with stonith against the other node,
>>> once the two nodes can communicate, how can I be sure the two nodes will
>>> not try to stonith each other?
>>>
>> The simplest
16.08.2020 04:25, Reid Wahl пишет:
>
>
>> - considering that I have both nodes with stonith against the other node,
>> once the two nodes can communicate, how can I be sure the two nodes will
>> not try to stonith each other?
>>
>
> The simplest option is to add a delay attribute (e.g.,
> *Music: *http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
> *Quantum Mechanics : *http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
>
> --
>
>
> *Da:* Gabriele Bulfon
> *A:* Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
>
> *Data:* 29 lug
clustering welcomed
Data:
29 luglio 2020 14.22.42 CEST
Oggetto:
Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
It is a ZFS based illumos system.
I don't think SBD is an option.
Is there a reliable ZFS based stonith?
Gabriele
Sonicle S.r.l.
:
http://www.sonicle.com
Music:
http
>http://www.sonicle.com
>Music:
>http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
>Quantum Mechanics :
>http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
>Da:
>Reid Wahl
>A:
>Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
>Data:
>30 luglio 2020 6.38.58 CEST
>Ogget
This one links to how to power fence when reservations are removed:
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/4526731
Best Regards,
Strahil Nikolov
На 30 юли 2020 г. 9:28:51 GMT+03:00, Andrei Borzenkov
написа:
>30.07.2020 08:42, Strahil Nikolov пишет:
>> You got plenty of options:
>> - IPMI
m
>Quantum Mechanics :
>http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
>Da:
>Reid Wahl
>A:
>Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
>Data:
>28 luglio 2020 12.03.46 CEST
>Oggetto:
>Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
>Gabriele,
&g
://www.sonicle.com
Music:
http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
Quantum Mechanics :
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
Da:
Reid Wahl
A:
Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
Data:
30 luglio 2020 6.38.58 CEST
Oggetto:
Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
I don't know
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:29 AM Strahil Nikolov wrote:
>
> This one links to how to power fence when reservations are removed:
> https://access.redhat.com/solutions/4526731
>
All of this is RH(CS) specific
___
Manage your subscription:
30.07.2020 08:42, Strahil Nikolov пишет:
> You got plenty of options:
> - IPMI based fencing like HP iLO, DELL iDRAC
> - SCSI-3 persistent reservations (which can be extended to fence the node
> when the reservation(s) were removed)
>
SCSI reservation prevents data corruption due to
> >Quantum Mechanics :
> >http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
>
> >------
> >Da: Strahil Nikolov
> >A: Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
> >Gabrie
w.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
>
> --
>
>
> *Da:* Reid Wahl
> *A:* Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
>
> *Data:* 29 luglio 2020 11.39.35 CEST
> *Oggetto:* Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
>
>
clustering welcomed
Data:
29 luglio 2020 11.39.35 CEST
Oggetto:
Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
"As it stated in the comments, we don't want to halt or boot via ssh, only
reboot."
Generally speaking, a stonith reboot action consists of the following basic
sequence of event
- All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
Data:
29 luglio 2020 9.46.09 CEST
Oggetto:
Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 9:01 AM Gabriele Bulfon
gbul...@sonicle.com
wrote:
That one was taken from a specific implementation on Solaris 11.
The situation
luster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
>Data:
>28 luglio 2020 12.03.46 CEST
>Oggetto:
>Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
>Gabriele,
>
>"No route to host" is a somewhat generic error message when we can't
>find anyone to fence
"As it stated in the comments, we don't want to halt or boot via ssh, only
reboot."
Generally speaking, a stonith reboot action consists of the following basic
sequence of events:
1. Execute the fence agent with the "off" action.
2. Poll the power status of the fenced node until it is
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 9:01 AM Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> That one was taken from a specific implementation on Solaris 11.
> The situation is a dual node server with shared storage controller: both
> nodes see the same disks concurrently.
> Here we must be sure that the two nodes are not going to
-source clustering welcomed
Gabriele Bulfon
Data: 29 luglio 2020 6.39.08 CEST
Oggetto: Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
Do you have a reason not to use any stonith already available ?
Best Regards,
Strahil Nikolov
На 28 юли 2020 г. 13:26:52 GMT+03:00, Gabriele Bulfon
написа:
Thanks, I
Gabriele,
"No route to host" is a somewhat generic error message when we can't find
anyone to fence the node. It doesn't mean there's necessarily a network
routing issue at fault; no need to focus on that error message.
I agree with Ulrich about needing to know what the script does. But based
on
>>> Gabriele Bulfon schrieb am 28.07.2020 um 10:56 in
Nachricht <1330096936.11468.1595926619455@www>:
> Hi, now I have my two nodes (xstha1 and xstha2) with IPs configured by
> Corosync.
> To check how stonith would work, I turned off Corosync service on second
> node.
> First node try to
32 matches
Mail list logo
