Re: [ClusterLabs] Loss of quoram not detected. corosync 1.4.8 , pacemaker 1.1.14. CentOS 6

Ah. Okay. Thank you, let me try that. On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Digimer wrote: > Neither option is feasible. There are compatibility issues with corosync > v2 on EL6, and adapting corosync v1 to be a quorum provider is basically > recreate corosync v2. > > The pcs tool

Re: [ClusterLabs] Loss of quoram not detected. corosync 1.4.8 , pacemaker 1.1.14. CentOS 6

Neither option is feasible. There are compatibility issues with corosync v2 on EL6, and adapting corosync v1 to be a quorum provider is basically recreate corosync v2. The pcs tool makes the overhead of adding cman to the mix go away, and it's part of why it was created in the first place. Use

Re: [ClusterLabs] Loss of quoram not detected. corosync 1.4.8 , pacemaker 1.1.14. CentOS 6

I have dreaded that answer. Maybe I can fix vote quorum on corosync 1.4. Or maybe I can get 2.X working on EL6. Really don't wanna deal with another layer. Thanks. On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 13/04/17 05:07 PM, neeraj ch wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I

Re: [ClusterLabs] Loss of quoram not detected. corosync 1.4.8 , pacemaker 1.1.14. CentOS 6

On 13/04/17 05:07 PM, neeraj ch wrote: > Hi, > > I have three node cluster set up. My corosync config is as follows. > > compatibility: whitetank > totem { > version: 2 > secauth: on > threads: 0 > interface { > member{ > memberaddr: ip > } > member{ >

[ClusterLabs] Loss of quoram not detected. corosync 1.4.8 , pacemaker 1.1.14. CentOS 6

Hi, I have three node cluster set up. My corosync config is as follows. compatibility: whitetank totem { version: 2 secauth: on threads: 0 interface { member{ memberaddr: ip } member{ memberaddr:ip } member{ memberaddr:ip

Re: [ClusterLabs] Fraud Detection Check?

> -Original Message- > From: Dmitri Maziuk [mailto:dmitri.maz...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:30 AM > To: users@clusterlabs.org > Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Fraud Detection Check? > > On 2017-04-13 01:39, Jan Pokorný wrote: > > > After a bit of a search, the best

[ClusterLabs] How to force remove a cluster node?

Hi, I need to remove some nodes from my existing pacemaker cluster which are currently unbootable / unreachable. Referenced https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/High_Availability_Add-On_Reference/s1-clusternodemanage-HAAR.html#s2-noderemove-HAAR 4.4.4. 

[ClusterLabs] Why shouldn't one store resource configuration in the CIB?

Hi, I encountered several (old) statements on various forums along the lines of: "the CIB is not a transactional database and shouldn't be used as one" or "resource parameters should only uniquely identify a resource, not configure it" and "the CIB was not designed to be a configuration database

[ClusterLabs] nodes ID assignment issue

Hi, I have a question regarding building CIB nodes scope and specifically assignment to node IDs. It seems like the preexisting scope is not honored and nodes can get replaced based on check-in order. I pre-create the nodes scope because it is faster, then setting parameters for all the nodes

Re: [ClusterLabs] Surprising semantics of location constraints with INFINITY score

kgronl...@suse.com (Kristoffer Grönlund) writes: > I discovered today that a location constraint with score=INFINITY > doesn't actually restrict resources to running only on particular > nodes. Yeah, I made the same "discovery" some time ago. Since then I've been using something like the

Re: [ClusterLabs] Fraud Detection Check?

On 2017-04-13 01:39, Jan Pokorný wrote: After a bit of a search, the best practice at the list server seems to be: [...] if you change the message (eg, by adding a list signature or by adding the list name to the Subject field), you *should* DKIM sign. This is of course going entirely

Re: [ClusterLabs] cloned resources ordering and remote nodes problem

Thank you, however in my case this parameter does not change the described behavior. I have a more detail example: order: res_A-clone -> res_B-clone -> res_C when "res_C" is not on the node, which had "res_A" instance failed, it will not be restarted, only "res_A" and "res_B" all instances will.

Re: [ClusterLabs] Ubuntu 16.04 - 2 node setup

James, Hey guys, Apologies for burdening you with my issue, but I'm at my wits' end! I'm trying to set up a 2-node cluster on two Ubuntu 16.04 VMs. I actually had this working earlier, but because I had tweaked a number of different settings (both corosync related and external settings),

[ClusterLabs] Antw: KVM virtualdomain - stopped

>>> Jaco van Niekerk schrieb am 13.04.2017 um 10:01 in >>> Nachricht : > Hi > > I am having endless problems with ocf::heartbeat:VirtualDomain when > failing over to second node. The virtualdomain goes into a stopped

Re: [ClusterLabs] Coming in Pacemaker 1.1.17: container bundles

On 03/04/17 09:47 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On 04/03/2017 02:12 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: > Ken Gaillot schrieb am 01.04.2017 um 00:43 in > Nachricht >> <981d420d-73b2-3f24-a67c-e9c66dafb...@redhat.com>: >> >> [...] >>> Pacemaker 1.1.17 introduces a new type of

[ClusterLabs] Ubuntu 16.04 - 2 node setup

Hey guys, Apologies for burdening you with my issue, but I'm at my wits' end! I'm trying to set up a 2-node cluster on two Ubuntu 16.04 VMs. I actually had this working earlier, but because I had tweaked a number of different settings (both corosync related and external settings), I reverted

Re: [ClusterLabs] Fraud Detection Check?

On 13/04/17 08:21 +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote: > On 12/04/17 17:16 -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: >> On 04/12/2017 04:36 PM, Jan Pokorný wrote: >> >>> Eric, as of now, to get rid of the fraud warnings, it's primarily your >>> emailing software that needs to be taught to be less picky either when >>>

Re: [ClusterLabs] Fraud Detection Check?

On 12/04/17 17:16 -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 04/12/2017 04:36 PM, Jan Pokorný wrote: > >> Eric, as of now, to get rid of the fraud warnings, it's primarily your >> emailing software that needs to be taught to be less picky either when >> sending, i.e., also DKIM signing the message to