Hi,
Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:24, Satomi TANIGUCHI
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Dejan,
Thank you for letting me know!
I'll test it.
Now, may I ask you a question?
cluster-delay seems to still require the value
which is longer than the maximum possible stonith timeout
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:24, Satomi TANIGUCHI
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dejan,
>
>
> Thank you for letting me know!
> I'll test it.
>
> Now, may I ask you a question?
> cluster-delay seems to still require the value
> which is longer than the maximum possible stonith timeout for tengine.
I
Hi Dejan,
Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
Hi Satomi-san,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 07:24:39PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
Hi Dejan,
Thank you for letting me know!
I'll test it.
Now, may I ask you a question?
cluster-delay seems to still require the value
which is longer than the maximum possibl
Hi Satomi-san,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 07:24:39PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
> Hi Dejan,
>
>
> Thank you for letting me know!
> I'll test it.
>
> Now, may I ask you a question?
> cluster-delay seems to still require the value
> which is longer than the maximum possible stonith timeout for teng
Hi Dejan,
Thank you for letting me know!
I'll test it.
Now, may I ask you a question?
cluster-delay seems to still require the value
which is longer than the maximum possible stonith timeout for tengine.
If cluster-delay is shorter than sum total of plugins' timeout values,
then tengine detect
Hi,
Just to let you know that I renamed fence-timeout to
stonith-timeout, because there are already stonith-this and
stonith-that in crm_cluster_properties. Still better to be
consistently "stonith": naming this "fence-..." would most
probably confuse people. As if they weren't confused enough ;-)
Hi Satomi-san,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 05:39:53PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
> Hi Dejan,
>
> I found some bugs.
>
> 1) When fence-timeout is not set and priority is set,
>priority's value is used as both fence_timeout and priority.
>The patch for this bug is fence-timeout.patch
Right.
Hi Dejan,
I found some bugs.
1) When fence-timeout is not set and priority is set,
priority's value is used as both fence_timeout and priority.
The patch for this bug is fence-timeout.patch
2) Stonithd can execute only 2 or less plugins.
With 3 or more plugins, priority is ignored.
Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:36:05PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
Hi,
Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 05:30:35PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
- fencing operation timeouts per stonith resource (stonithd)
ack
http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemak
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 02:05:59PM +0200, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:36:05PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 05:30:35PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
> >>
> >> - fencing operation
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:36:05PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 05:30:35PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
>>
>> - fencing operation timeouts per stonith resource (stonithd)
> ack
http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacem
Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 16:17, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The timeouts are taken from the "start" operation. Even though it
may not be obvious that this timeout is used for the fencing
operations as well, I think that it still makes more sense than
making
Hi,
Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 05:30:35PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
Hi,
Thank you very very much for your quick action, Dejan!!
Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 05:28:42PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 16:44, Dejan Muha
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:52:56PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 15:52, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oh, right, that timeout (based on cluster_delay) was provided
> > only as a hint to stonithd how much the fencing operation should
> > take. Anyway, p
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 15:52, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, right, that timeout (based on cluster_delay) was provided
> only as a hint to stonithd how much the fencing operation should
> take. Anyway, please keep sending it (the timeout), because
> stonithd falls back on it i
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 16:17, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The timeouts are taken from the "start" operation. Even though it
>>> may not be obvious that this timeout is used for the fencing
>>> operations as well, I think that it still makes more sense than
>>> making an extra
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 05:30:35PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you very very much for your quick action, Dejan!!
>
> Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 05:28:42PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 16:44, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTE
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 09:11:43AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:02 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 05:28:42PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 16:44, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On
On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:02 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 05:28:42PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 16:44, Dejan Muhamedagic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:
Hi,
Thank you very very much for your quick action, Dejan!!
Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 05:28:42PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 16:44, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 05:28:42PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 16:44, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:00, Satomi TANIGUCHI
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 16:44, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:00, Satomi TANIGUCHI
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> If you _really_ want to have a per-plugin value,
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:00, Satomi TANIGUCHI
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> If you _really_ want to have a per-plugin value, I suggest making it
> an extra resource parameter (ie. like hostlist) and teach stoni
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:00, Satomi TANIGUCHI
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>> I implemented a prototype, and it seems to work well.
>>> I would like to hear your opinions.
>>
>> Personally I think this is unnecessarily complicated.
>>
>> I'm sure what you have works well, but would favor
Hi Andrew,
Thanks a lot for your reply!
Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:09, Satomi Taniguchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Lars and Andrew,
I considered about the way to tell tengine how long it should lengthen
timeout
without telling STONITH resources' ids.
My idea is the
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:09, Satomi Taniguchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Lars and Andrew,
>
> I considered about the way to tell tengine how long it should lengthen
> timeout
> without telling STONITH resources' ids.
>
> My idea is the following.
>
> (1) add stonith op in .
>For example:
Hi Lars and Andrew,
I considered about the way to tell tengine how long it should lengthen timeout
without telling STONITH resources' ids.
My idea is the following.
(1) add stonith op in .
For example:
[...snip...]
type="external/kdumpcheck">
[...snip...
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 13:29, Satomi Taniguchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Lars,
>
> Thank you for your reply!
>
>
> Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> (snip)
>>
>> There is one missing bit though; a node not doing kdump needs to be
>> STONITH'ed; so, failure of the kdump-stonith plugin should "esc
Hi Lars,
Thank you for your reply!
Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
(snip)
There is one missing bit though; a node not doing kdump needs to be
STONITH'ed; so, failure of the kdump-stonith plugin should "escalate" to
the next plugin. I'm not sure the current STONITH subsystem can handle
this.
I thi
On 2008-08-08T11:27:24, Satomi Taniguchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm in difficulty because of STONITH for the node that is in the middle
> of doing kdump.
> For example, when kernel panic occurs, kdump is executed in second
> kernel on a node.
> But it is killed by STONITH before kdump finish
Hi all,
I'm in difficulty because of STONITH for the node that is in the middle
of doing kdump.
For example, when kernel panic occurs, kdump is executed in second
kernel on a node.
But it is killed by STONITH before kdump finishes, and consequently
nothing is dumped.
I know that waiting kdump to b
31 matches
Mail list logo
