On 17/03/16 07:30 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, at 06:24 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On 03/17/2016 05:10 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
>>> If I ignore pacemaker's existence, and just run corosync, corosync
>>> disagrees about node membership in the situation presented in the
>>> Christopher Harvey schrieb am 16.03.2016 um 21:04 in Nachricht
<1458158684.122207.551267810.11f73...@webmail.messagingengine.com>:
[...]
>> > Would stonith solve this problem, or does this look like a bug?
>>
>> It should, that is its job.
>
> is there some log I can enable
root file system is fine ...
but fencing is not a necessity a cluster shld function without it .. i see
the issue with corosync which has all been .. a inherent way of not working
neatly or smoothly ..
for e.g. take an issue where the live node is hung in db cluster .. now db
perspective
On 19/03/16 10:10 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 18.03.2016 00:50, Digimer wrote:
>> On 17/03/16 07:30 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, at 06:24 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
On 03/17/2016 05:10 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> If I ignore pacemaker's existence, and
On 18.03.2016 00:50, Digimer wrote:
> On 17/03/16 07:30 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, at 06:24 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>> On 03/17/2016 05:10 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
If I ignore pacemaker's existence, and just run corosync, corosync
disagrees about node
Christopher,
If I ignore pacemaker's existence, and just run corosync, corosync
disagrees about node membership in the situation presented in the first
email. While it's true that stonith just happens to quickly correct the
situation after it occurs it still smells like a bug in the case where
On 17/03/16 01:57 PM, vija ar wrote:
> root file system is fine ...
>
> but fencing is not a necessity a cluster shld function without it .. i
> see the issue with corosync which has all been .. a inherent way of not
> working neatly or smoothly ..
Absolutely wrong.
If you have a service that
If I ignore pacemaker's existence, and just run corosync, corosync
disagrees about node membership in the situation presented in the first
email. While it's true that stonith just happens to quickly correct the
situation after it occurs it still smells like a bug in the case where
corosync in used
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, at 06:24 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 03/17/2016 05:10 PM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> > If I ignore pacemaker's existence, and just run corosync, corosync
> > disagrees about node membership in the situation presented in the first
> > email. While it's true that stonith just