Thanks for all suggestions. It is really odd for me that this usecase,
which is very basic for simple virtualization cluster, is not described
in every FAQ out there...
It appears that my setup is working correctly with non-symmetrical
ordering constraints:
Ordering Constraints:
start
On 10/10/2016 06:56 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 10:21 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
>> On 10/10/2016 04:54 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2016 07:36 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
> On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>> 10.10.2016
On 10/10/2016 10:21 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 04:54 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On 10/10/2016 07:36 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>>> 10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> 10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
>> Why are the
On 10/10/2016 07:36 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> 10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
>> On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>>> 10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
>>> If they were mandatory, then all the virtual machines
10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
If they were mandatory, then all the virtual machines would be
restarted when libvirtd restarts. This is not desired
On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>
> 10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
>> Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
>
> If they were mandatory, then all the virtual machines would be
> restarted when libvirtd restarts. This is not desired nor needed. When
> this
10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
If they were mandatory, then all the virtual machines would be restarted
when libvirtd restarts. This is not desired nor needed. When this
happens, the node is fenced because it is unable to
On 10/10/2016 10:17 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> Hello.
>
> We are trying to migrate our services to relatively fresh version of
> cluster software. It is RHEL 7 with pacemaker 1.1.13-10. I’ve faced a
> problem when live migration of virtual machines is allowed. In short,
> I need to manage
