is without any warranty and further support, sorry.
Maloja01
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Maloja01 wrote:
On 04/07/2014 03:00 PM, Ammar Sheikh Saleh wrote:
thanks for your help ... can you guide me to the correct commands :
I dont understand with is in this command
crm(live)n
FIRST you need to setup fencing (STONITH) - I do not see any stonith
resource in your cluster - that WILL be a problem in your cluster.
You could not "migrate" a Master/Slave. You Should use "crm_master" to
Score the Master-Placement. And you should remove all
client-Prefer-location-rules whic
On 03/14/2014 08:50 PM, David Vossel wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Maloja01"
To: "Linux-HA"
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 5:32:34 AM
Subject: [Linux-HA] How to tell pacemaker to process a new event during a
long-running resource operation
Hi all,
I have a
Hi all,
I have a resource which could in special cases have a very long-running
start operation.
If I have a new event (like switching a standby node back to online)
during the already running transition (cluster is still
S_TRANSITION_ENGINE) I would like the cluster to process them as soon
On 01/13/2012 11:04 AM, Niclas Müller wrote:
> I've grouped both as www-services and not it is running like i want.
> Change to takeover is 4-6 sec. Its good, but I want to go to 1-3 sec as
> far as possible. Much process last will there not because I only made a
> Projekt for school with Linux
on the other hand) not
take 10 hours to get the end-customers service working. In such a case
even pacemaker could not do anything.
Kind regards
Fabian
>
> But nice tip!
>
> Thx
> Erkan :)
>
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 10:22:32AM +0100, Maloja01 wrote:
>> In an other cust
In an other customer setup we decided to set a resource to status
"unmanaged" when it has to do some special work which should not be
interrupted. After the replication (in our case redloogs in a backup db)
we set the resource to be managed again.
I never have tried to change already triggered tim
On 08/18/2011 12:19 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Reading the docs, I learned that pacemaker understands more complex
> dependencies than "group" where resources are strictly sequential. For
> example one could start a set of resources in parallel, then wait until all
> are done, then start
The order constraints do work as I assume, but I guess that
you run into a pifall:
A clone is marked as "up", if one instance in the cluster is started
successfully. The order does not say, that the clone on the same node
must be up.
Kind regards
Fabian
On 08/10/2011 01:43 PM, i...@umbertocarrar
de3 even quickly, I should have also seen group-2 stopped/restarted
> due to the order-group-2 constraint)
>
> Hope it helps to clarify ...
> Thanks again
> Alain
>
>
>
> De :Maloja01
> A : linux-ha@lists.linux-ha.org
> Date : 05/08/2011 11:40
> Obje
Hi,
processes in state D looks like locked in a kernel call/device request.
Do you have a problem with your storage? This is not cluster related .
Kind regards
Fabian
On 08/05/2011 01:55 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we run a cluster that has about 30 LVM VGs that are monitored every minute
On 08/02/2011 05:06 PM, alain.mou...@bull.net wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have this simple configuration of locations and orders between resources
> group-1 , group-2 and clone-1
> (on a two nodes ha cluster with Pacemaker-1.1.2-7 /corosync-1.2.3-21) :
>
> location loc1-group-1 group-1 +100: node2
> loc
just reopen my first msg in this thread, it would be nice
> for me ...
Yes you are right - so I will "rewind" the thread beginning from message
1 :)
> Thanks a lot anyway.
> Alain
>
>
>
> De :Maloja01
> A : linux-ha@lists.linux-ha.org
> Date : 05/
On 08/05/2011 08:30 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>> Maloja01 schrieb am 04.08.2011 um 18:49 in Nachricht
> <4e3acd86.1020...@arcor.de>:
>> Hi Ulrich,
>>
>> I did not folow the complete thread, just jumped in - sorry. Is the
>> resource inside a r
:
>>>> Maloja01 schrieb am 04.08.2011 um 12:58 in Nachricht
> <4e3a7b5c.1030...@arcor.de>:
>> On 08/04/2011 08:28 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Isn't the stickyness effectively based on the failcount? We have one
>> resource
>&g
On 08/04/2011 08:28 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Isn't the stickyness effectively based on the failcount? We have one resource
> that has a location constraint for one node with a weight of 50 and a
> sticky ness of 10. The resource runs on a different node and shows no
> tendency of
Are there other nodes with the same multicast address?
On 08/02/2011 12:38 AM, Hai Tao wrote:
>
> I reinstalled the OS for node1 (in a two nodes HA, and the node1 had a disk
> error), and reconfigured HA. however, after restarting the heartbeat, I see
> many errors of " string2msg_ll: node [?] f
STONITH
You could use
- ilo system management boards
- ipmi system managemt boards
- power swiches ,
You can even run stonith -l to figure out a proper set of
stonith devices.
And yes you can setup more than one heartbeat link.
Just add an other link derictive to /etc/ha.d/ha.cf
-
Access rights to the directory? - is the directory available (created)?
- Original Nachricht
Von: Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: General Linux-HA mailing list
Datum: 29.08.2008 17:35
Betreff: Re: [Linux-HA] Getting Heartbeat OK
> On 2008-08-29T17:23:27, Adrian C
Split-Brain Situations are *very* critical for a two node setup, aspecially
when you are using
shared media like disks drbd syncs and so on.
For bigger clusters the problem is a bit more easy, bevause you get a quorum
loss, if half the
nodes are "down" or disconnected. You can use the directive
Did you use the correct cn (certificate attribute cn must be equal to
the cluster name)?
If you use the cluster name "mycluster" and your quorum server could
be reached with a special name (dont remeber it know, but you can strace
it easyly) you can also use quorumdtest as a clien test program to
Hi all,
what's the defined difference between the two order rules
1: A before B
2: B after A
For normal operation I guess these rules are odering the
same start sequence.
But is there a difference, if A or B are failing (during
start or operation)?
Regards
Fabian
Riccardo Perni schrieb:
>
>
> Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
>
>> On 10/22/07, Riccardo Perni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> Is it possible
>>> >> to handle this situation?
>>> >
>>> > You may try quorumd. See
>>> >
>>> > http://www.linux-ha.org/QuorumServerGuide
>>>
>>> I'm g
I am searching for an I/O fencing method like SCSI(3) reservation.
Is there any method implemented yet for use with heartbeat to avoid
accidently mount multiple times the same file system from diffrent nodes?
Of course I could configure heartbeat not to mount twice and I could
use a quorum server
Is it possible to extent a running cluster with
new cluster nodes?
The extention should be done without any stop of
any resource placed on nodes, which are running
in the cluster before we extend the cluster.
If it is possible, can I use the "is_managed" attribute
to leave the resources untouc
I hope my email is not shipped twice, but my last mail seams not to recive the
list.
My messge was:
Is it possible to extent a running cluster with
new cluster nodes?
The extention should be done without any stop of
any resource placed on nodes, which are running
in the cluster before we extend
26 matches
Mail list logo
