I've got a very simple question which I suspect betrays my lack of
understanding of something basic. Could someone help me understand?
If I have a two-node Pacemaker cluster - say, a really simple cluster
of two nodes, A & B, with a solitary network connection between them -
then I have to set no
On 02/09/13 04:16, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> For stonith-ng you'll need a version which has the fencing-topology feature.
I do have stonith-ng (the Linux process is 'stonithd' but in its log
entries it identifies as 'stonith-ng') so that gave me something to
look for - 'fencing-topology'.
And
I have two specific questions about setting up multiple STONITH
resources that are capable of killing the same node. I'm running
Pacemaker 1.1.6-3 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 with a cluster of
two nodes, both KVM VMs.
My intent is to actually have three stonith resources for each node/VM:
-
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Ulrich Windl
wrote:
> After some short thinking I find that using ssh as STONITH is probably the
> wrong thing to do, because it can never STONITH if the target is down already.
>
> Maybe some shared storage and a mechanism like sbd is the way to go.
> With everyt
Hi. I'm running a simple two-node cluster with Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 6, corosync 1.4.1, pacemaker 1.1.7 and crm. Each node (A & B)
are KVM VMs in separate physical machines/hypervisors.
I have two separate networks between the machines; network X is a
bonded pair, network Y a direct link betw
Hi. I have a simple two-node cluster which serves up a web
application in an active/passive configuration. The cluster is
running Pacemaker 1.1.7-6 and Corosync 1.4.1-7 with Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 6.3. Each node is a KVM (libvirt) virtual machine hosted on a
Red Hat Enterprise 6.3 physical hos
Hi. I have a simple two-node cluster which serves up a web
application in an active/passive configuration. Each node is in a
separate data center. The cluster is running Pacemaker and Corosync
with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2. I've performed some experiments
with the Red Hat version 1.4.1 of C
Hi Dima,
>> With only two nodes comprising the cluster I believe a quorum is
>> impossible, so I've set no-quorum-policy to 'ignore'. However I was
>> wondering if there is a possibility of using one or more 'tie breaker'
>> devices/resources to determine a proper quorum? I _think_ I've seen
>>
I'm setting up a very basic two-node active/passive cluster using
Pacemaker 1.1.7 and Corosync 1.4.1 under Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.3.
The cluster is running a web application that needs to be accessed by
our separate LAN of desktops.
With only two nodes comprising the cluster I believe a quoru
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Digimer wrote:
> Welcome to the addiction^h^h^hcommunity.
Hello Digimer! Thanks for the speedy reply.
And the warning about the addiction. :)
> In case it matters; Red Hat supports corosync + cman + rgmanager in RHEL
> 6.x. Pacemaker is scheduled to replace c
Hello,
Having done some reading over the past week on Pacemaker and Corosync
I'd like to ask a few questions about points on which I'm still hazy.
I'm trying to set up a very simple active/passive cluster of two
nodes. The nodes will be KVM VM guests, each of the two running on
separate physical
11 matches
Mail list logo
