On 24/07/2013, at 10:09 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote:
> On 2013-07-24T21:40:40, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > >>> Statically assigned nodeids? >> Wouldn't hurt, but you still need to bring down the still-active node to get >> it to talk to the new node. >> Which sucks > > Hm. But ... corosync/pacemaker ought to identify the node via the > nodeid. If it comes back with a different IP address, that shouldn't be > a problem. > > Oh. *thud* Just realized that it's bound to be one for unicast > communications, not so much mcast. Exactly. > Seems we may need some corosync magic > commands to edit the nodelist at runtime. (Or is that already possible > and I just don't know how? ;-) I believe it might be possible - I just don't know it. Might even be better to have it happen automagically - after-all the new node knows the existing node's address. But good luck getting that one through. _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org