Hi, On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 05:03:35PM +0100, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote: > Hi, > > I did some more tests with my two node cluster, regarding pingd. > > I started the two node cluster. Both nodes came up, resources are > distributed as the location constraints define it. The location of the > Xen resources are dependent on pingd attributes. > Then on the only one ping node, I flushed the state tables, and only > allowed pings from the host ppsdb101. I saw the > Xen resources moving, everything great. I changed the Firwall > on the Ping node to only allow pings from the ppsnfs101 host. Well, > all four Xen resources moved over to the ppsnfs101 host. > At 16:17 the I disabled the both ports of the switch where the nodes > are connected, e.g. a real life usecase would be: > 1. non redundant netork layout > 2. no stonith, or stonith over network (e.g. ilo or ssh) > 3. someone removes power from the switch where both nodes are connected > > Then I waited about 10 seconds, and enabled both ports again. > The RSTP took some more seconds to restructure. > > After that both nodes could communicate again with each other, and > the pings are reaching the ping node again, the lines that the pingd > produces as transient attributes to the nodes, were both gone. > > Before I removed the cable, I issued a > cibadmin -Q -o status | grep ping > and the two lines, one for each host, showed up, after disconnecting > both hosts, and reconnecting, rerunning the cibadmin command, > showed me, both attr lines were gone. I did wait for about 5-10 minutes > but it did not came back. I did that several times, with one or the > other node or both being able to ping the ping node before > disabling the switch ports. > > I expected the transient pingd attributes that the nodes had, > A) not to disappear, but only get resetted to 0 > B) In case it is ok that they disappeared, I expected them to come back, > when they are receiving echo replies from the ping node again. > > But maybe I am still missing sth or misunderstood. Who is right, me or the > cluster? > > output of hb_report is attached.
No, it was not :) > > kind regards > Sebastian > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
