Hmm. I will then work towards bringing this in. Thanks for your input.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Digimer wrote:
> On 22/06/16 01:07 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > I don't get it. Pacemaker + Corosync is providing me so much of
> > functionality.
> > For e.g. if we leave
On 22/06/16 01:09 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> We are not using virtual IP. There is a separate discovery mechanism
> between the server and client. The client will reach out to new server
> only if it is incommunicado with the old one.
That's fine, but it really doesn't change anything. Whether
I don't get it. Pacemaker + Corosync is providing me so much of
functionality.
For e.g. if we leave out the condition of split-brain for a while, then it
provides:
1) Discovery and cluster formation
2) Synchronization of data
3) Heartbeat mechanism
4) Swift failover of the resource
5) Guarantee
ClusterLabs is proud to announce the latest release of the Pacemaker
cluster resource manager, version 1.1.15. The source code is available at:
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/releases/tag/Pacemaker-1.1.15
The most significant enhancements since version 1.1.14 are:
* A new "alerts"
On 06/20/2016 11:33 PM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> Let me give the full picture about our solution. It will then make it
> easy to have the discussion.
>
> We are looking at providing N + 1 Redundancy to our application servers,
> i.e. 1 standby for upto N active (currently N<=5). Each server will
On 21/06/16 01:27 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 12:13 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>> You should not run pacemaker without some sort of fencing. This need not
>> be network-controlled power socket (and tiebreaker is not directly
>> related to fencing).
>
> Yes it can be
21.06.2016 20:05, Dimitri Maziuk пишет:
> On 06/21/2016 11:47 AM, Digimer wrote:
>
>> If you don't need to coordinate services/access, you don't need HA.
>>
>> If you do need to coordinate services/access, you need fencing.
>
> So what you're saying is we *cannot* run a pacemaker cluster without
On 06/21/2016 11:47 AM, Digimer wrote:
> If you don't need to coordinate services/access, you don't need HA.
>
> If you do need to coordinate services/access, you need fencing.
So what you're saying is we *cannot* run a pacemaker cluster without a
tiebreaker node *and* a network-controlled
On 21/06/16 10:57 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 2016-06-20 17:19, Digimer wrote:
>
>> Nikhil indicated that they could switch where traffic went up-stream
>> without issue, if I understood properly.
>
> They have some interesting setup, but that notwithstanding: if split
> brain happens some
On 21/06/16 12:19 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 06/17/2016 07:05 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>> 03.05.2016 01:14, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>> On 04/19/2016 10:47 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
Hi,
Just found an issue with node is silently unfenced.
That is quite large setup (2
On 06/17/2016 07:05 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 03.05.2016 01:14, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On 04/19/2016 10:47 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just found an issue with node is silently unfenced.
>>>
>>> That is quite large setup (2 cluster nodes and 8 remote ones) with
>>> a plenty
On 2016-06-20 17:19, Digimer wrote:
Nikhil indicated that they could switch where traffic went up-stream
without issue, if I understood properly.
They have some interesting setup, but that notwithstanding: if split
brain happens some clients will connect to "old master" and some: to
"new
12 matches
Mail list logo