date:20160105

Re: [ClusterLabs] SBD Latency Warnings

2016-01-05 Thread Kai Dupke

On 12/31/2015 01:01 AM, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
> Thanks for confirming and for the wonderful feedback. I totally missed
> the -5 option!I've now included a "-5 20" on my /etc/sysconfig/sbd
> file.  Hopefully it will stop these messages since I don't expect a
> delay higher than 10 seconds!

To be honest, it will not fix the root cause which looks like SBD is not
getting enough CPU cycles within 4 seconds, which is a lot of time
computer-wise.

For me it simply looks like the machine should get more CPU resources
assinged.

Else the VM might behave not as you want and these messages are just a
small issue compared to something real going wrong.

greetings
Kai Dupke
Senior Product Manager
Server Product Line
-- 
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power.
Phone:  +49-(0)5102-9310828 Mail: kdu...@suse.com
Mobile: +49-(0)173-5876766  WWW:  www.suse.com

SUSE Linux GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg (Germany)
GF:Felix Imendörffer,Jane Smithard,Graham Norton,HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

[ClusterLabs] About globally unique resource instances distribution per node

2016-01-05 Thread Daniel Hernández

> On 1/4/16, Ferenc Wagner  wrote:
> Please check how http://bugs.clusterlabs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5221
> applies to your case.  Comment on the issue if you've got something to
> add.
> --
> Regards,
> Feri.
>

I found that http://bugs.clusterlabs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5221 applies
to my case when I have free capacity (utilization value greater than
total resource value). In my example I have capacity: on node1 6, on
node2 9, on node3 8. If I change that capacity to: on node1 4, on
node2 3, on node3 5 (utilization value equal to total resource value),
there the cluster start the instances as I want(on node1 4, on node2
3, on node3 5).

 Clone Set: clone_example1 [example1] (unique)
 example1:0 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example1:1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example1:2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example1:3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example1:4 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example1:5 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example1:6 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example1:7 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example1:8 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example1:9 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example1:10(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example1:11(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3


I find that maybe if I use different names for utilization on nodes
for different resources, that could work when having multiple
resources. Example:

crm node utilization node1 set cpuexample1 4
crm node utilization node2 set cpuexample1 3
crm node utilization node3 set cpuexample1 5

crm node utilization node1 set cpuexample2 2
crm node utilization node2 set cpuexample2 6
crm node utilization node3 set cpuexample2 3

crm resource utilization example1 set cpuexample1 1
crm resource utilization example2 set cpuexample2 1

Using balanced placement strategy the cluster state was:

Clone Set: clone_example1 [example1] (unique)
 example1:0 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example1:1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example1:2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example1:3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example1:4 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example1:5 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example1:6 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example1:7 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example1:8 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example1:9 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example1:10(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example1:11(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 Clone Set: clone_example2 [example2] (unique)
 example2:0 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example2:1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example2:2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example2:3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example2:4 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2
 example2:5 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example2:6 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example2:7 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example2:8 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node1
 example2:9 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node3
 example2:10(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started node2

I am not sure if in all the scenarios that work the same way but I
will consider using that approach.
Thanks for your time.
Daniel

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] booth release schedule query

2016-01-05 Thread Dejan Muhamedagic

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:57:01PM +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> From the same vein as the other today's question, I'd like to know if
> there is a booth release to be cut any time soon.  Currently, latest
> release is from Oct 2014.

I was thinking about a release too. We can have one sometimes
next week if nothing to preclude it comes up.

Cheers,

Dejan

> I'd like to have it packaged in Fedora repositories (I know about the
> OBS, but that may be inconvenient).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Jan (Poki)



> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org


___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Asking for a new DLM release

2016-01-05 Thread Jan Pokorný

On 04/01/16 14:44 +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Ferenc Wagner  writes:
> 
>> DLM 4.0.2 was released on 2013-07-31.  The Git repo accumulated some
>> fixes since then, which would be nice to have in a proper release.

Coincidentally, yet without any knowledge about your query:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/dlm.git/tag/?h=dlm-4.0.3

> By the way I offer https://github.com/wferi/dlm/commits/upstream-patches
> for merging or cherry-picking into upstream.

Shortly after that, David Teigland got a heads-up:

https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/dlm.git/tag/?h=dlm-4.0.4

> And if I'm hitting the wrong forum with this DLM topic, please
> advise me.

Worked well this time around :)

-- 
Jan (Poki)


pgp2Ulr5ptef3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] SBD Latency Warnings

[ClusterLabs] About globally unique resource instances distribution per node

Re: [ClusterLabs] booth release schedule query

Re: [ClusterLabs] Asking for a new DLM release

4 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information