On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:54:48 +0100 James Gibbon wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:21:14 +0200
> Felix Frank wrote:
>
> > On 07/31/2012 05:19 PM, James Gibbon wrote:
> > > Is that right?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > I'd still consider losing the split brain resolution option.
> >
>
> Many thanks, Felix
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:21:14 +0200
Felix Frank wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 05:19 PM, James Gibbon wrote:
> > Is that right?
>
> Yes.
>
> I'd still consider losing the split brain resolution option.
>
Many thanks, Felix. This has all been a useful learning experience
as well as a problem resolution
Felix - thank you for correcting that! Jake Original Message From: Felix Frank Sent: Tue, 31/07/2012 09:25 AM To: Jake Smith CC: James Gibbon ; drbd-user@lists.linbit.com Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] DRBD - one half of Proxmox cluster miscommunicating_
On 07/31/2012 05:19 PM, James Gibbon wrote:
> Is that right?
Yes.
I'd still consider losing the split brain resolution option.
___
drbd-user mailing list
drbd-user@lists.linbit.com
http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
Hello,
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:04:02 +0200
Felix Frank wrote:
> I stand by this assessment. You got "lucky" insofar that both
> nodes were primary when they saw each other again. There is no
> autorecovery from that. If for some freak reason your "good"
> node would have been in a demoted state
Hi,
On 07/31/2012 04:23 PM, James Gibbon wrote:
>
> Thanks again for your reply, Felix. I'm still a bit confused though,
understandably so I guess ;-)
> I'm sorry to say. In your earlier reply to Jake, you said:
>
>
>> >
>>> > > after-sb-1pri discard-secondary;
>> >
>> > thi
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 01:06:30PM +0200, Sebastian Riemer wrote:
> On 31.07.2012 12:14, David Coulson wrote:
> > Does it matter? Your data is accessible from both nodes while it syncs.
> >
> > I suppose you have a risk of the primary failing until it has a full
> > copy on the other node, but sinc
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:27:52 +0200
Felix Frank wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/31/2012 03:23 PM, James Gibbon wrote:
> > OK - thanks again. Since the master is already up and running,
> > I'm hoping that the broken secondary box isn't going to get
> > promoted - is that a reasonable assumption?
>
> it's
Hi,
On 07/31/2012 03:23 PM, James Gibbon wrote:
> OK - thanks again. Since the master is already up and running,
> I'm hoping that the broken secondary box isn't going to get
> promoted - is that a reasonable assumption?
it's already promoted. Hence split brain. It's not an issue though.
It's ea
Hi,
On 07/31/2012 03:07 PM, Jake Smith wrote:
> ## sb-1pri says to discard data on the secondary and resync if there has only
> been the one primary since the last uptodate status
uhm, no. It's a policy for "what to do if there is only 1 primary at the
time of connecting".
If there has been only
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:03:22 +0200
Felix Frank wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 02:49 PM, James Gibbon wrote:
> > Can someone tell me what the "become-primary-on-both" part
> > means? I'm fairly anxious to ensure that the second node
> > doesn't attempt to become primary when its restarted as its
> > data
- Original Message -
> From: "James Gibbon"
> To: "James Gibbon"
> Cc: drbd-user@lists.linbit.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:49:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] DRBD - one half of Proxmox cluster miscommunicating
>
>
> Can someone tell me what the "become-primary-on-both" part me
Can someone tell me what the "become-primary-on-both" part means? I'm
fairly anxious to ensure that the second node doesn't attempt to become
primary when its restarted as its data will be out of date..
startup {
wfc-timeout 15;
degr-wfc-timeout 60;
On 07/31/2012 02:49 PM, James Gibbon wrote:
> Can someone tell me what the "become-primary-on-both" part means? I'm
> fairly anxious to ensure that the second node doesn't attempt to become
> primary when its restarted as its data will be out of date..
It does what you assume. The initscript will
Hi Felix,
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:24:38 +0200
Felix Frank wrote:
>
> I see. Quite unusual I'd say, to have two drbd nodes that each
> use a NAS as backing device. But it looks sound, judging from
> the config. Thanks for that.
>
Thanks a lot for taking a look! I take it the strategy we've
alre
Original Message
Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] how can i reduce the time doing initial full sync
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:37:22 +0100
From: Philip Gaw
To: Felix Frank
I usually bond 4+ gigabit links together with balance-rr to lower sync
time (assuming you dont already have 10G bet
Hi,
On 07/31/2012 01:10 PM, James Gibbon wrote:
> OK. The VM images for the cluster are stored in two Cisco NAS
> units. Both the physical servers are connected to these using
> iSCSI, through two Cisco gigabit switches. So for example a
> particular VM disk image might be visible, from both serv
Hi Felix,
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:12:30 +0200
Felix Frank wrote:
>
> > Not sure I even can copy the second node's data - it's not
> > communicating with the storage at all. But I only need the
> > first node's data.
>
> This too makes me edgy. The "storage"? In most DRBD setups, the
> data res
On 31.07.2012 12:14, David Coulson wrote:
> Does it matter? Your data is accessible from both nodes while it syncs.
>
> I suppose you have a risk of the primary failing until it has a full
> copy on the other node, but since it is a one time, on build, thing it
> isn't a big deal.
>
> Short answer
Does it matter? Your data is accessible from both nodes while it syncs.
I suppose you have a risk of the primary failing until it has a full
copy on the other node, but since it is a one time, on build, thing it
isn't a big deal.
Short answer is bigger pipe, faster drives, plenty of cpu. And
On 07/31/2012 12:07 PM, JAMES GIBBON wrote:
> But for sure, there aren't any running now on the broken node. The
> first node is running all of the VMs, quite smoothly fortunately.
Good, so it's probably safe to trash the other node's data.
> Not sure I even can copy the second node's data - it's
On 31 July 2012 10:33, Felix Frank wrote:
> What's bugging me a bit is the relatively high number of "out
> of sync" blocks as reported by your second node. Are you
> absolutely certain that no VM has been started on this node
> since you've lost connectivity? For that matter, how certain
> are y
Hi,
On 07/31/2012 12:02 PM, Mia Lueng wrote:
> Hi All:
>I have a two storage with 10T capacibility. When I doing initial
> full sync ,it will take a whole night. How can I reduce the time doing
> initial full sync.
one night for 10TB doesn't sound bad at all to me, to be honest ;-)
Anywhere,
Hi All:
I have a two storage with 10T capacibility. When I doing initial
full sync ,it will take a whole night. How can I reduce the time doing
initial full sync.
Thanks
___
drbd-user mailing list
drbd-user@lists.linbit.com
http://lists.linbit.com/mai
Hi,
On 07/31/2012 11:27 AM, JAMES GIBBON wrote:
> Ah, thanks Felix.
>
> So - I think I need to do, on the broken node:
>
> # drbdadm disconnect all
> # drbdadm secondary all
> # drbadm connect --discard-my-data all
without checking back with the Guide, this *looks* sound to me.
Disconnect
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:57:47 +0200
Dirk Bonenkamp - ProActive wrote:
>
> Since the problem is on the slave, I wouldn't worry to much.
> Fix the IP on the slave and issue the 'drdbadm connect all' on
> the slave. If it has been the slave all the time, it should
> connect and synchronise without co
On 07/31/2012 10:57 AM, Dirk Bonenkamp - ProActive wrote:
> split brain that
>> needs resolving. See
>> http://www.drbd.org/users-guide/s-resolve-split-brain.html and
It's all laid out in the above link. You *are* in split brain.
This probably won't mess with performance. Be sure your syncer rate
Op 31-7-2012 10:51, JAMES GIBBON schreef:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:32:48 +0200
> Felix Frank mailto:f...@mpexnet.de>> wrote:
>
> >
> > Judging from your log excerpt, there might be a connectivity
> > issue, but this could very well be a pure split brain that
> > needs resolving. See
> > http://www
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:32:48 +0200
Felix Frank wrote:
>
> Judging from your log excerpt, there might be a connectivity
> issue, but this could very well be a pure split brain that
> needs resolving. See
> http://www.drbd.org/users-guide/s-resolve-split-brain.html and
> note that you will likely l
Hi!
2 x Ubuntu 8.04
drbd 8.0.11
After several reboots of each node because of power failures there was a split
brain and the connection state on both nodes became StandAlone.
I performed the steps from here:
http://www.drbd.org/users-guide-8.3/s-resolve-split-brain.html . Everything
worked fi
Hi,
On 07/30/2012 10:06 PM, JAMES GIBBON wrote:
> version: 8.3.7 (api:88/proto:86-91)
> srcversion: EE47D8BF18AC166BE219757
> 0: cs:WFConnection ro:Primary/Unknown ds:UpToDate/DUnknown C r
> ns:0 nr:0 dw:27568823 dr:156762105 al:309656 bm:309639 lo:0 pe:0
> ua:0 ap:0 ep:1 wo:b oos:1018463
31 matches
Mail list logo
