As said before, fencing.
On 01/07/15 06:54 AM, alex austin wrote:
so did another test:
two nodes: node1 and node2
Case: node1 is the active node
node2: is pasive
if I killall -9 pacemakerd corosync on node 1 the services do not fail
over to node2, but if I start corosync and pacemaker
. If it’s disabled it
might not
be able to resolve the event
Alex
*From:* alex austin [mailto:alexixa...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:51 AM
*To:* Users@clusterlabs.org
*Subject:* Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker failover failure
So I noticed that if I kill
so did another test:
two nodes: node1 and node2
Case: node1 is the active node
node2: is pasive
if I killall -9 pacemakerd corosync on node 1 the services do not fail over
to node2, but if I start corosync and pacemaker on node1 then it fails over
to node 2.
Where am I mistaking?
Alex
On
to resolve the event
Alex
*From:* alex austin [mailto:alexixa...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:51 AM
*To:* Users@clusterlabs.org
*Subject:* Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker failover failure
So I noticed that if I kill redis on one node, it starts on the other, no
problem
So I noticed that if I kill redis on one node, it starts on the other, no
problem, but if I actually kill pacemaker itself on one node, the other
doesn't sense it so it doesn't fail over.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:42 PM, alex austin alexixa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have configured a
*To:* Users@clusterlabs.org
*Subject:* Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker failover failure
So I noticed that if I kill redis on one node, it starts on the other,
no
problem, but if I actually kill pacemaker itself on one node, the other
doesn't sense it so it doesn't fail over
STONITH on the peer. If it’s disabled it
might not
be able to resolve the event
Alex
*From:* alex austin [mailto:alexixa...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:51 AM
*To:* Users@clusterlabs.org
*Subject:* Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker failover failure
So I noticed that if I
