>>> Eric Robinson schrieb am 05.02.2020 um 21:59 in
Nachricht
<4849_1580936395_5E3B2CCA_4849_709_1_MN2PR03MB4845D4B66D794C4AF58DF2E3FA020@MN2P
03MB4845.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>:
[...]
>
> I've done that with all my other clusters, but these two servers are in
> Azure, so the network is out
On February 6, 2020 4:18:15 AM GMT+02:00, Eric Robinson
wrote:
>Hi Strahil –
>
>I think you may be right about the token timeouts being too short. I’ve
>also noticed that periods of high load can cause drbd to disconnect.
>What would you recommend for changes to the timeouts?
>
>I’m running Red
Hi Strahil –
I think you may be right about the token timeouts being too short. I’ve also
noticed that periods of high load can cause drbd to disconnect. What would you
recommend for changes to the timeouts?
I’m running Red Hat’s Corosync Cluster Engine, version 2.4.3. The config is
Hello Strahil,
This kind of configuration should not be recommended.
Why?
Since SBD partition need to be accessed by the cluster nodes stably/frequently.
But the other partition (for XFS file system) is probably under extreme
pressure conditions,
in that case, the SBD partition IO requests will
On 2020-02-05 5:07 a.m., Steven Levine wrote:
> I'm having some trouble re-registering for the Clusterlabs IRC channel
> but this might get to you.
>
> Red Hat's overview documentation of qdevice (quorum device when spelled
> out in the doc) is here:
>
>
Hi Strahil –
I can’t prove there was no network loss, but:
1. There were no dmesg indications of ethernet link loss.
2. Other than corosync, there are no other log messages about connectivity
issues.
3. Wouldn’t pcsd say something about connectivity loss?
4. Both servers are in
Hello Community,
I'm preparing for my EX436 and I was wondering if there are any drawbacks if a
shared LUN is split into 2 partitions and the first partition is used for SBD ,
while the second one for Shared File System (Either XFS for active/passive, or
GFS2 for active/active).
Do you see any
> -Original Message-
> From: Users On Behalf Of Strahil Nikolov
> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 1:59 PM
> To: Andrei Borzenkov ; users@clusterlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Why Do Nodes Leave the Cluster?
>
> On February 5, 2020 8:14:06 PM GMT+02:00, Andrei Borzenkov
> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Users On Behalf Of Andrei
> Borzenkov
> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:14 PM
> To: users@clusterlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Why Do Nodes Leave the Cluster?
>
> 05.02.2020 20:55, Eric Robinson пишет:
> > The two servers 001db01a and 001db01b
05.02.2020 20:55, Eric Robinson пишет:
> The two servers 001db01a and 001db01b were up and responsive. Neither had
> been rebooted and neither were under heavy load. There's no indication in the
> logs of loss of network connectivity. Any ideas on why both nodes seem to
> think the other one is
05.02.2020 18:16, Олег Самойлов пишет:
> Hi all.
>
> I am reading the documentation about new (for me) pacemaker, which came with
> RedHat 8.
>
> And I see two different chapters, which both tried to solve exactly the same
> problem.
>
> One is CONFIGURING DISASTER RECOVERY CLUSTERS (pcs dr):
The two servers 001db01a and 001db01b were up and responsive. Neither had been
rebooted and neither were under heavy load. There's no indication in the logs
of loss of network connectivity. Any ideas on why both nodes seem to think the
other one is at fault?
(Yes, it's a 2-node cluster without
Hi all.
I am reading the documentation about new (for me) pacemaker, which came with
RedHat 8.
And I see two different chapters, which both tried to solve exactly the same
problem.
One is CONFIGURING DISASTER RECOVERY CLUSTERS (pcs dr):
This is about infrastructure to create two different
I'm having some trouble re-registering for the Clusterlabs IRC channel
but this might get to you.
Red Hat's overview documentation of qdevice (quorum device when spelled
out in the doc) is here:
14 matches
Mail list logo
