On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 19:19 -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:33 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > 07.12.2017 00:28, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
> > > On 12/06/2017 08:03 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2017-12-03 at 14:03 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > > > > I assumed
On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:33 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 07.12.2017 00:28, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
> > On 12/06/2017 08:03 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2017-12-03 at 14:03 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > > > I assumed that with corosync 2.x quorum is maintained by
> > > > corosync
07.12.2017 00:28, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
> On 12/06/2017 08:03 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On Sun, 2017-12-03 at 14:03 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>> I assumed that with corosync 2.x quorum is maintained by corosync and
>>> pacemaker simply gets yes/no. Apparently this is more complicated.
>> It
On 12/06/2017 08:03 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-12-03 at 14:03 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> I assumed that with corosync 2.x quorum is maintained by corosync and
>> pacemaker simply gets yes/no. Apparently this is more complicated.
> It shouldn't be, but everything in HA-land is
On Sun, 2017-12-03 at 14:03 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> I assumed that with corosync 2.x quorum is maintained by corosync and
> pacemaker simply gets yes/no. Apparently this is more complicated.
It shouldn't be, but everything in HA-land is complicated :)
>
> Trivial test two node cluster
