Re: [Linux-cluster] suggestion on freeze-on-node1 and unfreeze-on-node2 approach?

2010-01-08 Thread Lon Hohberger
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 16:12 +0100, Gianluca Cecchi wrote: > If I get a network problem and my vip goes down for more than 30 > seconds (that should be default interval between checks), it will > cause a relocation of the whole service and not a try-restart of only > the vip, correct? Yes. > With

Re: [Linux-cluster] suggestion on freeze-on-node1 and unfreeze-on-node2 approach?

2010-01-08 Thread Gianluca Cecchi
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:06:57 -0500 Lon Hohberger wrote: >You could set 'recovery="relocate"', freeze the service, stop the > database cleanly, then unfreeze the service. Ah, thanks, it should work. The only "limit" would be that any recovery action will imply relocation, correct? (Some problems he

Re: [Linux-cluster] suggestion on freeze-on-node1 and unfreeze-on-node2 approach?

2010-01-08 Thread Lon Hohberger
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 13:03 +0100, Gianluca Cecchi wrote: > But sometimes we have to do maintenance on DB and use the strategy to > freeze the service, manually stop DB, make modifications, manually > start DB and unfreeze the service. You could set 'recovery="relocate"', freeze the service, stop

[Linux-cluster] suggestion on freeze-on-node1 and unfreeze-on-node2 approach?

2010-01-08 Thread Gianluca Cecchi
Hello, I have a cluster with an Oracle service and rhel 5.4 nodes. Tipically one sets the "shutdown abort" of the DB as the default mechanism to close the service, to prevent stalling and accelerate switch of service itself in case of problems. The same approach is indeed used by the rhcs provided