On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Alain.Moulle wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Currently, my nodes are being reinstalled with RHEL6 GA, so as soon as
> possible
> I'll execute the same tests , but with the GA releases so :
> pacemaker-1.1.2-7.el6
> corosync-1.2.3-21.el6.x86_64
> and by the way, I'll test
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Alain.Moulle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to execute the same test with el6 GA releases, meaning :
> corosync-1.2.3-21.el6.x86_64
> pacemaker-1.1.2-7.el6.x86_64
>
> Good news , it seems much more stable ,
Even better news, this version doesn't include the perfor
Hi,
I just wanted to execute the same test with el6 GA releases, meaning :
corosync-1.2.3-21.el6.x86_64
pacemaker-1.1.2-7.el6.x86_64
Good news , it seems much more stable , I 've configured this time 140
resnames Dummy
with 70 on each node, and launched the same test of start/stop (with
longer
Hi Andrew,
Currently, my nodes are being reinstalled with RHEL6 GA, so as soon as
possible
I'll execute the same tests , but with the GA releases so :
pacemaker-1.1.2-7.el6
corosync-1.2.3-21.el6.x86_64
and by the way, I'll test also option 3 with corosync + cpg + cman + mcp
If with these GA rele
Hi,
I sent a half-finished email. I'm sorry.
FYI,I dont simply that from my experience.
> 2 and 4 node clusters running 1.0.x should easily handle 200 resources or
so.
> Clusters running >= 1.1.4 should be able to go even higher.
12 and 16 node clusters not running from pm-1.0.x(12 * 16 = 192).
Hi,
FYI,I dont simply that from my experience.
2 and 4 node clusters running 1.0.x should easily handle 200 resources or
so.
Clusters running >= 1.1.4 should be able to go even higher.
10resource
Regards,
Tomo
2010/12/9 Andrew Beekhof
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Alain.Moulle
> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Alain.Moulle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks.
> So I have a robustness pb with Pacemaker/corosync ... you'll tell me
> if it seems normal or not , if I miss something or not :
Perfectly valid testcase, unacceptable result.
Perhaps try with stonith-enabled=false so we can
(contd.)
> Note that the same test but with only 4 resname loops successfully
> infinitely .
Ooops ... in fact, same pb after 9 loops ...
Alain
___
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
(contd.)
Note that the same test but with only 4 resname loops successfully
infinitely .
Alain
___
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
Hi,
Thanks.
So I have a robustness pb with Pacemaker/corosync ... you'll tell me
if it seems normal or not , if I miss something or not :
for example on two nodes, I make a script which configure 60 resnames
with ocf pacemaker Dummy script,
(30 with INFINITY location on node1 and 30 with INFINITY
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Alain.Moulle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if there are some limits with Pacemaker in terms of :
>
> nb of resources (primitives, groups, clones etc.) in the whole HA
> Cluster with 2 or 4 nodes ?
>
> nb of resources (primitives, groups, clones etc.) per node in a HA Cl
Hi,
I wonder if there are some limits with Pacemaker in terms of :
nb of resources (primitives, groups, clones etc.) in the whole HA
Cluster with 2 or 4 nodes ?
nb of resources (primitives, groups, clones etc.) per node in a HA Cluster ?
Thanks
Alain
___
12 matches
Mail list logo
