> Sent: 12 October 2007 12:14
> To: High-Availability Linux Development List
> Subject: Re: [Linux-ha-dev] Lrmd creeping processor utilization
>
> On 2007-10-12T00:47:11, Simon Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Dejan,
> >
> > I have impl
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:16:10PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2007-10-12T14:55:01, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I see exactly the same in a very simple 2 node configuration, and the
> > inability to shut down heartbeat cleanly is a pretty nasty pain. I
> > see a respo
reflect our corporate views or policies.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars
Marowsky-Bree
Sent: 12 October 2007 12:14
To: High-Availability Linux Development List
Subject: Re: [Linux-ha-dev] Lrmd creeping processor utilization
On 2007-10
On 2007-10-12T14:55:01, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see exactly the same in a very simple 2 node configuration, and the
> inability to shut down heartbeat cleanly is a pretty nasty pain. I
> see a response to this which says it's "fixed", but I don't believe
> in fixes until they
On 2007-10-12T00:47:11, Simon Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Dejan,
>
> I have implemented the patches across the cluster and will observe the
> behaviour,
Have you selectivelyu applied the patch or moved the cluster to the
latest code base?
Regards,
Lars
--
Teamlead Kernel,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:44:19PM +0100, Simon Talbot wrote:
> The cluster work fine, fails over perfectly and generally behaves, but
> slowly the lrmd process increases in processor utilization over the
> period of about 24 hours it will rise from virtually 0 to around 15%,
> after a few more day
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dejan
Muhamedagic
Sent: 11 October 2007 22:45
To: High-Availability Linux Development List
Subject: Re: [Linux-ha-dev] Lrmd creeping processor utilization
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:44:19PM +0100, Simon Talbot
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:44:19PM +0100, Simon Talbot wrote:
> All,
>
> I am currently doing some work with 2.1.2 in a fairly simple four node
> configuration, basically running two different ldirectord configurations
> on two nodes and the third and fourth acting as spares which takes over
All,
I am currently doing some work with 2.1.2 in a fairly simple four node
configuration, basically running two different ldirectord configurations
on two nodes and the third and fourth acting as spares which takes over
should any other node fail. The fourth node, whilst present in all the
config
On 4/16/07, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 06:53:37AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
> Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Dealing with the LRM regression testing, I've noticed that the
> > lrmd tries to get the configuration from the environment which is
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 06:53:37AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
> Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Dealing with the LRM regression testing, I've noticed that the
> > lrmd tries to get the configuration from the environment which is
> > empty (configuration-wise: what a word!) if lrmd is st
Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dealing with the LRM regression testing, I've noticed that the
> lrmd tries to get the configuration from the environment which is
> empty (configuration-wise: what a word!) if lrmd is started by
> hand and not by heartbeat. Apart from the lrmd's messages ending
Hi,
Dealing with the LRM regression testing, I've noticed that the
lrmd tries to get the configuration from the environment which is
empty (configuration-wise: what a word!) if lrmd is started by
hand and not by heartbeat. Apart from the lrmd's messages ending
up in a place where they are not supp
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2006-06-28T17:32:32, David Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I was wondering whether the protocol is described somewhere (in similar
> > manner to RFCs describing SMTP, TCP, etc.). Alternatively, whether the
> > expected (designed) internal o
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Matthew Soffen wrote:
> David Lee wrote:
> > [...]
> > Matt: that "now"... Do you mean it used to work in the past but no longer
> > does so? If so, do you have any "before and after" time-bracketing? (Or
> > what CVS update precipitated it?)
> >
> > My own environment is So
David Lee wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Matthew Soffen wrote:
Alan Robertson wrote:
David Lee wrote:
I'm trying to get lrmd and lrmadmin running under Solaris. Some
parts are
OK. But some parts are not working: from some lrmadmin requests, the
result (probably failure) is not g
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Matthew Soffen wrote:
> Alan Robertson wrote:
> > David Lee wrote:
> >> I'm trying to get lrmd and lrmadmin running under Solaris. Some
> >> parts are
> >> OK. But some parts are not working: from some lrmadmin requests, the
> >> result (probably failure) is not getting back
On 2006-06-28T17:32:32, David Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering whether the protocol is described somewhere (in similar
> manner to RFCs describing SMTP, TCP, etc.). Alternatively, whether the
> expected (designed) internal operation of lrmd was documented.
Well, the protocol is n
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Sun Jiang Dong wrote:
> David Lee wrote:
> > I'm trying to get lrmd and lrmadmin running under Solaris. Some parts are
> > OK. But some parts are not working: from some lrmadmin requests, the
> > result (probably failure) is not getting back to lrmadmin, which then
> > waits
Alan Robertson wrote:
David Lee wrote:
I'm trying to get lrmd and lrmadmin running under Solaris. Some
parts are
OK. But some parts are not working: from some lrmadmin requests, the
result (probably failure) is not getting back to lrmadmin, which then
waits forever even though lrmd has intern
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Alan Robertson wrote:
> David Lee wrote:
> > I'm trying to get lrmd and lrmadmin running under Solaris. Some parts are
> > OK. But some parts are not working: from some lrmadmin requests, the
> > result (probably failure) is not getting back to lrmadmin, which then
> > waits
David Lee wrote:
I'm trying to get lrmd and lrmadmin running under Solaris. Some parts are
OK. But some parts are not working: from some lrmadmin requests, the
result (probably failure) is not getting back to lrmadmin, which then
waits forever even though lrmd has internally produced a result.
David Lee wrote:
I'm trying to get lrmd and lrmadmin running under Solaris. Some parts are
OK. But some parts are not working: from some lrmadmin requests, the
result (probably failure) is not getting back to lrmadmin, which then
waits forever even though lrmd has internally produced a result
I'm trying to get lrmd and lrmadmin running under Solaris. Some parts are
OK. But some parts are not working: from some lrmadmin requests, the
result (probably failure) is not getting back to lrmadmin, which then
waits forever even though lrmd has internally produced a result.
I don't know wheth
24 matches
Mail list logo
