>
> Whoa, I think you win some sort of fubar prize. :-)
It's always nice to feel special.
>
> AFAIK, any OS-level time or timezone change affects all processes equally. (I
> occasionally deal with cluster logs where the OS time jumped backward or
> forward, and all logs system-wide are
> -Original Message-
> From: Users On Behalf Of Jan Pokorný
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 2:45 AM
> To: users@clusterlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Different Times in the Corosync Log?
>
> On 21/08/18 08:43 +, Eric Robinson wrote:
> >> I could guess that the processes run
Thanks Ken and Ulrich. There is definitely high IO on the system with
sometimes IOWAIT s of upto 90%
I have come across some previous posts that IOWAIT is also considered as
CPU load by Corosync. Is this true ? Does having high IO may lead corosync
complain as in " Corosync main process was not
On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 15:29 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > > > Prasad Nagaraj schrieb am
> > > > 21.08.2018 um 11:42 in
>
> Nachricht
> :
> > Hi Ken - Thanks for you response.
> >
> > We do have seen messages in other cases like
> > corosync [MAIN ] Corosync main process was not scheduled for
You could accomplish this be creating a custom RA which normally acts as a
pass-through and calls the "real" RA. However, it intercepts "monitor"
actions, checks nfs, and if nfs is down it returns success, otherwise it
passes though the monitor action to the real RA. If nfs fails the monitor
Whoa, I think you win some sort of fubar prize. :-)
AFAIK, any OS-level time or timezone change affects all processes
equally. (I occasionally deal with cluster logs where the OS time
jumped backward or forward, and all logs system-wide are equally
affected.)
Some applications have their own
I’m seeing unexpected behavior when using “unfencing” – I don’t think I’m
understanding it correctly. I configured a resource that “requires
unfencing” and have a custom fencing agent which “provides unfencing”. I
perform a simple test where I setup the cluster and then run “pcs stonith
fence
On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 07:49 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > > > Ken Gaillot schrieb am 20.08.2018 um
> > > > 16:49 in
>
> Nachricht
> <1534776566.6465.5.ca...@redhat.com>:
> > On Mon, 2018‑08‑20 at 10:51 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I wonder whether it's possible to run a
>>> Prasad Nagaraj schrieb am 21.08.2018 um 11:42
>>> in
Nachricht
:
> Hi Ken - Thanks for you response.
>
> We do have seen messages in other cases like
> corosync [MAIN ] Corosync main process was not scheduled for 17314.4746 ms
> (threshold is 8000. ms). Consider token timeout increase.
On 21/08/18 08:43 +, Eric Robinson wrote:
>> I could guess that the processes run with different timezone
>> settings (for whatever reason).
>
> That would be my guess, too, but I cannot imagine how they ended up
> in that condition.
Hard to guess, the PIDs indicate the expected state of
> Hi!
>
> I could guess that the processes run with different timezone settings (for
> whatever reason).
>
> Regards,
> Ulrich
That would be my guess, too, but I cannot imagine how they ended up in that
condition.
>
> >>> Eric Robinson schrieb am 21.08.2018 um
> >>> 02:43 in
> Nachricht
>
Hi!
I could guess that the processes run with different timezone settings (for
whatever reason).
Regards,
Ulrich
>>> Eric Robinson schrieb am 21.08.2018 um 02:43 in
Nachricht
> The corosync log show different times for lrmd messages than for cib or crmd
> messages. Note the 4 hour
12 matches
Mail list logo
