On 2017-09-20 07:53 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> We've started a major update of the ClusterLabs web design. The main
> goal (besides making it look more modern) is to make the top-level more
> about all ClusterLabs projects rather than Pacemaker-specific. It's
> also much more
Hi everybody,
We've started a major update of the ClusterLabs web design. The main
goal (besides making it look more modern) is to make the top-level more
about all ClusterLabs projects rather than Pacemaker-specific. It's
also much more mobile-friendly.
We've also updated our new logo --
On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 10:08 +, Roberto Muñoz Gomez wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I don't know why if one of the two nodes is rebooted, when the node
> is back, some of the resources move to it despite default-resource-
> stickiness=100 and the resources have failcount=0 and there is no
> constraint
On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 11:48 +0200, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
> Ken Gaillot writes:
>
> > * undocumented LRMD_MAX_CHILDREN environment variable
> > (PCMK_node_action_limit is the current syntax)
>
> By the way, is the current syntax documented somewhere? Looking at
Hi,
I don't know why if one of the two nodes is rebooted, when the node is back,
some of the resources move to it despite default-resource-stickiness=100 and
the resources have failcount=0 and there is no constraint influencing that
change.
By some I mean sometimes 1, other 90, other
Ken Gaillot writes:
> * undocumented LRMD_MAX_CHILDREN environment variable
> (PCMK_node_action_limit is the current syntax)
By the way, is the current syntax documented somewhere? Looking at
crmd/throttle.c, throttle_update_job_max() is only ever invoked with a
NULL
Hi,
as 1.1.17 received a lot of care in pcmk_remote, I decided to try it again
in rather big setup (less then previous, so I'm not hit by IPC disconnects
here).
>From the first runs there are still some severe issues when cluster nodes are
>fenced.
The following results are obtained by
On 09/20/2017 10:40 AM, Tiemen Ruiten wrote:
> Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. We will look for
> another way to determine master/slave status of this application then.
What you still could try is to write kind of an ocf-wrapper for your
systemd-service
so that you can leave
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. We will look for another
way to determine master/slave status of this application then.
On 20 September 2017 at 09:20, Tomas Jelinek wrote:
>
>
> Dne 20.9.2017 v 09:03 Tomas Jelinek napsal(a):
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> systemd
Dne 20.9.2017 v 09:03 Tomas Jelinek napsal(a):
Hi,
systemd resources cannot be used as master/slave resources. In order to
use a resource as a master/slave, the resource must support promote and
demote actions [1], which systemd resources don't.
# pcs resource create test systemd:postfix
Hi,
systemd resources cannot be used as master/slave resources. In order to
use a resource as a master/slave, the resource must support promote and
demote actions [1], which systemd resources don't.
# pcs resource create test systemd:postfix
# pcs resource master test
# pcs cluster verify -V
11 matches
Mail list logo