On 2013-12-03T19:47:41, "Brian J. Murrell" <br...@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:
> So given all of the above, and given the log I supplied showing that the > fencing was just not being attempted anywhere other than the node to be > fenced (which was down during that log) any clues as to where to look > for why? As far as I saw in your logs, you got a timeout (when host2 tried to fence host1). That doesn't seem to be related to this change. > It explains the differences, but unfortunately I'm still not sure why it > wouldn't get run somewhere else, eventually, rather than continually > being attempted on the node to be killed (which as I mentioned, was shut > down at the time the log was made). I think there was a fix related to this in post-1.1.10 git. Perhaps you can try that? Regards, Lars (For the record, this change in semantics and behaviour has caused quite some support questions here too. I didn't really like it either, but apparently, I'm just a whiner ;-) -- Architect Storage/HA SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde _______________________________________________ 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