(Not sure if the previous post failed or not as I submitted before approval)
dear friends, I am new here, need some advice
please.
I am trying to setup HA for mySQL on SLES11sp1
with DRBD and heartbeat. I found the HAE of SLES
seems has DRBD and SLES10 also have a older
version. But after
On 5/31/2011 9:47 AM, Felix Frank wrote:
On 05/31/2011 04:06 PM, Chris Barnes wrote:
That seems to be the recurring problem - the resource is NOT empty. It's
in production.
The docs seem to be written for folks that have 2 brand new, empty disk
arrays. At least in the places I work, that's nev
On 05/31/2011 04:06 PM, Chris Barnes wrote:
> That seems to be the recurring problem - the resource is NOT empty. It's
> in production.
>
> The docs seem to be written for folks that have 2 brand new, empty disk
> arrays. At least in the places I work, that's never gonna happen.
Doesn't compute.
On 05/31/2011 04:03 PM, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 09:51:15AM +0200, Felix Frank wrote:
>>> Does "X-Start-Before" mean start this before these, or start these before
>>> this? Ubuntu as a Debian should obey this LSB stuff. But
>>
>> Careful - you're agitating the Debian crowd ;-
On 5/31/2011 7:11 AM, Lionel Sausin wrote:
Because the other node can be primary any time - so the resource has to
be the same size on both nodes.
If the resource is still empty, the fastest move is to delete the LVs
and start again with LVs of the same size.
Otherwise, I think the 7TB node could
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 09:51:15AM +0200, Felix Frank wrote:
> > Does "X-Start-Before" mean start this before these, or start these before
> > this? Ubuntu as a Debian should obey this LSB stuff. But
>
> Careful - you're agitating the Debian crowd ;-)
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Ubu
Le -10/01/-28163 20:59, Chris Barnes a écrit :
> On 05/30/2011 2:28 AM, Lionel Sausin wrote:
>> Le -10/01/-28163 20:59, Joe Cabrera a écrit :
>>> Low.dev. smaller than requested DRBD-dev. size.
>>> (...)
>>> /dev/mapper/mars-tmp is 4TB
>>> (...)
>>> /dev/cciss/c0d0p7 is 7 TB
>> Well yes, 4TB is too
hi felix,
thanks your your quick response. the filesystem is indeed mission critical
:-) that's why i wanted to resize it online to avoid downtimes. but i guess
the downtime in case of a failure during online resizing would be longer
than a offline (unmounted) resize :-)
are there any experience
Hi,
On 05/31/2011 07:46 AM, lowshoe wrote:
> resize2fs /dev/drbd0
>
> can i now safely make this last step and resize the overlying
> ext3-partition online without data-loss or did i miss something? do i
> need to remount /dev/drbd0 at the end?
I believe this is supposed to be possible. I've hea
