On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26-Nov-10, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> The problem here is that these spurious node failures cause Pacemaker
>>> to initiate unnecessary resource migrations. Is it normal for the
>>> cluster to become confused for a wh
Hi,
On 26-Nov-10, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> The problem here is that these spurious node failures cause Pacemaker
>> to initiate unnecessary resource migrations. Is it normal for the
>> cluster to become confused for a while when the network connection to
>> a node is suddenly restore
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 25-Nov-10, at 11:37 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> Given what you've described, you could probably remove the while loop
>> during stop.
>> It should be safe because Amazon is ensuring that it will only "run"
>> in exactly one loca
Hi,
On 25-Nov-10, at 11:37 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Given what you've described, you could probably remove the while loop
> during stop.
> It should be safe because Amazon is ensuring that it will only "run"
> in exactly one location.
I'll give that a try -- thanks.
I noticed something else
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23-Nov-10, at 3:52 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>> Another question -- is it possible to define resources that do not
>>> have stop actions? On AWS, there is no need to explicitly stop an
>>> elastic IP before reassigning it to a
Hi,
On 23-Nov-10, at 3:52 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> Another question -- is it possible to define resources that do not
>> have stop actions? On AWS, there is no need to explicitly stop an
>> elastic IP before reassigning it to another node (the IP will be
>> automatically released from a host
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20-Nov-10, at 12:47 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> What do you think you gain by not increasing the timeout?
>> We don't sit around doing nothing if it completes in only a fraction
>> of the allocated time.
>>
>
> It's possible I
Hi,
On 20-Nov-10, at 12:47 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> What do you think you gain by not increasing the timeout?
> We don't sit around doing nothing if it completes in only a fraction
> of the allocated time.
>
It's possible I should increase it. The problem is that I'm not aware
of an upper
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Andrew Miklas wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to use Pacemaker on a Amazon Web Services' EC2 to
> automatically reassign elastic IPs (Amazon's equivalent to floating or
> virtual IPs) in the event of a node failure. The setup I'm testing
> with is two elastic IPs
Hi all,
I'm trying to use Pacemaker on a Amazon Web Services' EC2 to
automatically reassign elastic IPs (Amazon's equivalent to floating or
virtual IPs) in the event of a node failure. The setup I'm testing
with is two elastic IPs which will be assigned to any pair of hosts in
a three nod
10 matches
Mail list logo
