On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM, wrote:
> Digimer wrote:
> > On 18/06/14 12:32 PM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
> >> Ok, fencing is a requirement for a cluster for hardware failure.
> >> I've another question about this arg, but for software failure.
> >> Supposing to have a cluster of httpd installa
Digimer wrote:
> On 18/06/14 12:32 PM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
>> Ok, fencing is a requirement for a cluster for hardware failure.
>> I've another question about this arg, but for software failure.
>> Supposing to have a cluster of httpd installation on 6 virtualized
>> hosts, each one on a differ
On 18/06/14 12:32 PM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
> Ok, fencing is a requirement for a cluster for hardware failure.
> I've another question about this arg, but for software failure.
> Supposing to have a cluster of httpd installation on 6 virtualized
> hosts, each one on a different server. Suppose a
On 6/18/2014 9:32 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
> Ok, fencing is a requirement for a cluster for hardware failure.
> I've another question about this arg, but for software failure.
> Supposing to have a cluster of httpd installation on 6 virtualized
> hosts, each one on a different server. Suppose a
Il 17/06/2014 16:32, Digimer ha scritto:
> On 17/06/14 10:23 AM, Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Digimer [mailto:li...@alteeve.ca]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:20 PM
>>> To: CentOS mailing
On 17/06/14 10:23 AM, Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Digimer [mailto:li...@alteeve.ca]
>> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:20 PM
>> To: CentOS mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Question about clustering
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Digimer [mailto:li...@alteeve.ca]
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:20 PM
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Question about clustering
>
> On 16/06/14 02:55 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > One can also set the cluster
On 16/06/14 02:55 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Digimer wrote:
>> On 16/06/14 02:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2014 10:55 AM, Digimer wrote:
The main downside to fabric fencing is that the failed node will have
no
chance of recovering without human intervention. Further, it
Digimer wrote:
> On 16/06/14 02:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 6/16/2014 10:55 AM, Digimer wrote:
>>> The main downside to fabric fencing is that the failed node will have
>>> no
>>> chance of recovering without human intervention. Further, it places the
>>> onus on the admin to not simply unfen
On 16/06/14 02:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 6/16/2014 10:55 AM, Digimer wrote:
>> The main downside to fabric fencing is that the failed node will have no
>> chance of recovering without human intervention. Further, it places the
>> onus on the admin to not simply unfence the node without first
On 6/16/2014 10:55 AM, Digimer wrote:
> The main downside to fabric fencing is that the failed node will have no
> chance of recovering without human intervention. Further, it places the
> onus on the admin to not simply unfence the node without first doing
> proper cleanup/recovery. For these reas
On 16/06/14 01:36 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 6/16/2014 2:39 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
>> Hi Digimer,
>> there is a chance to make fencing without hardware, but only software?
>
> the most common fence in TCP connected systems is to disable the
> ethernet ports of the fenced system, done via a
On 6/16/2014 2:39 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
> Hi Digimer,
> there is a chance to make fencing without hardware, but only software?
the most common fence in TCP connected systems is to disable the
ethernet ports of the fenced system, done via a 'smart ethernet
switch'. if you're using shared
No. For fencing to be worthwhile, it *must* work when the node is in any
state. For this, it must be independent of node. A great way to see why
is to test crashing the node (echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger) or simply
cutting the power to the node. With the node totally disabled, the
surviving pee
Hi Digimer,
there is a chance to make fencing without hardware, but only software?
Il 15/06/2014 17:28, Digimer ha scritto:
> On 15/06/14 08:54 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
>> Another question is about fencing. I've ridden that a cluster must have
>> fencing to be considered as such. On CentOS 6.5
On 15/06/14 08:54 AM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
> Another question is about fencing. I've ridden that a cluster must have
> fencing to be considered as such. On CentOS 6.5 there is stonith that
> concerns node level fencing. For this type of fencing I must have ilo,
> ilom, drac, and other. It's poss
Hi list,
I'm new to clustering, and I'm running a little cluster@home. The
cluster is running on a workstation hardware and running on Centos 6.5.
Component: corosync, pacemaker, drbd and pcs. All works good.
This cluster has different resources:
1) drbd0
2) drbd1
3) drbd0_fs
4) drbd1_fs
5) pgs
17 matches
Mail list logo
