I may have made some progress on my OCFS2 error:
See the following output from ³dmesg²
[88740.345617] OCFS2: ERROR (device drbd0): ocfs2_validate_inode_block:
Invalid dinode #11: fs_generation is 376662488
[88740.345664] File system is now read-only due to the potential of on-disk
corruption. Ple
700
To: Mike Reid
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] Trouble getting node to re-join two node cluster
(OCFS2/DRBD Primary/Primary)
open("/dev/drbd0", O_RDONLY|O_DIRECT) = -1 EMEDIUMTYPE (Wrong medium
type)
drbd_open()
...
if (mdev->state.role != R_PRIMARY) {
Hello all,
** I have also posted this in the pacemaker list, but I have a feeling it's
more OCFS2 specific **
We have a two-node cluster still in development that has been running fine
for weeks (little to no traffic). I made some updates to our CIB recently,
and everything seemed just fine.
Yes
on colFSO2CB inf: cloneFS cloneO2CB
> colocation colO2CBDLM inf: cloneO2CB cloneDLM
> order ordDLMO2CB 0: cloneDLM cloneO2CB
> order ordDRBDDLM 0: msDRBD:promote cloneDLM
> order ordO2CBFS 0: cloneO2CB cloneFS
> property $id="cib-bootstrap-options" \
> dc-version="
I am running a two-node web cluster on OCFS2 via DRBD Primary/Primary
(v8.3.8) and Pacemaker. Everything seems to be working great, except during
testing of hard-boot scenarios.
Whenever I hard-boot one of the nodes, the other node is successfully fenced
and marked ³Outdated²
*
However, this l
in a while:
2008/04/21 18:10:09 [crit] 6917#0: *1256684 stat()
"/home/mike/web/michaelshadle.com/" failed (13: Permission denied),
client: 1.2.3.4, server: michaelshadle.com, request: "GET / HTTP/1.0",
host: "michaelshadle.com"
a stat() call fails on a directory, and t
suspect,
> and log a message if the time exceeds some configurable limit.
>
> Thanks,
> Herbert.
>
>
>
> mike wrote:
> > You're right, it -is- possible, but if you look at it (and I can log
> > it for hours) it only seems to do that right before I get a
does not seem to be anything related to that.
On 4/21/08, Herbert van den Bergh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Are you sure it's not possible for sdb to be idle for just 1 second? If you
> look at the interval right after the one you pointed out, you'll s
not a console
> per se and does not require a head/gtk/x11 etc to work. The link above
> explains the usage, etc.
>
>
> mike wrote:
> > Well these are headless production servers, CLI only. no GTK, no X11.
> > also I am not running the newer kernels (and I can't...)
ole does not require a reboot. The idea is to
> catch the oops trace when the oops happens. Without that trace,
> we are flying blind.
>
>
> mike wrote:
> > Since these are production I can't do much.
> >
> > But I did get an error (it's not happening as
e'll need
> that to figure this out. Without that, we can only speculate.
>
> mike wrote:
> >
> > On 4/21/08, Tao Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > mike wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have changed my kernel
Yes, but you said in another email data=writeback can disable this
blocking behavior, I am wondering what the side effects are of
data=writeback?
I am new to OCFS2, so I have not been using data=ordered long, I need
low latency/fast response, and it sounds like writeback can help, but
does it risk
"Oops... forgot to add. You can also avoid this by mounting the
volume with data=writeback. It is this default ordered journaling
mode (data=ordered) that is eventually forcing this data flush."
Is data=writeback unsafe?
Perhaps this is the same issue I'm having. It sounds about right.
Things fre
> On 4/21/08, Tao Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also please provide more details about it.
I am using nginx for a frontend load balancer, and nginx for a
webserver as well. This doesn't seem to be related to the webserver at
all though, it was happening before this.
lvs01 proxies traffic in to
On 4/21/08, Tao Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike wrote:
> > I have changed my kernel back to 2.6.22-14-server, and now I don't get
> > the kernel panics. It seems like an issue with 2.6.24-16 and some i/o
> > made it crash...
> >
> >
> OK, so it s
ection attempts
O2CB_RECONNECT_DELAY_MS=2000
On 4/21/08, Tao Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>Are you sure it is caused by the update of ocfs2-tools?
> AFAIK, the ocfs2-tools only include tools like mkfs, fsck and tunefs etc. So
> if you don't make any change to
Hi, I'm running into a big issue. I believe it is OCFS2, I can get my
machines to kernel panic consistently.
Before I was running Ubuntu Gutsy (7.10) ocfs2-tools 1.2.4.
Now I am running Ubuntu Hardy (8.04) ocfs2-tools 1.3.9.
I am even running the same kernel (2.6.22-14), but the behavior has
cha
the response.
-M
On 4/27/07, Sunil Mushran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have LP1 in our test machines.
Is the instability in your system related to fencing?
If so, update to OCFS2 1.2.5 and use more relaxed timeouts as
listed in the FAQ.
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 14:50 -0400, Mike
Does anyone have any experience with Emulex HBA cards (LP1) using OCFS2,
Linux AS4 U4 x86_64 AMD? I'm trying to find out whether this is a verified
combination, if anyone has successfully used it. I have that
hardware/sofware combination, and am experiencing
stability/performance/panic/hang
You know, if you only need two nodes, DRBD might be a good bet for that too.
I currently have NFSv4 + DRBD running on two nodes, and it fails over
with minimal interruption... and I'm just a newbie at the whole
HA/heartbeat/whatnot setup. I'm sure someone with more knowledge on
NFS tuning and some
I had this problem as well, and I didn't know where to look. Now I know! :)
I don't think it mentions it in the docs, and if it does it's very
small - and the example is wrong. Should fix the example and bold a
notice saying it must be indented :)
Thanks!
On 2/20/06, Sunil Mushran <[EMAIL PROTEC
t;
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:48 AM
> To: ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com
> Subject: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS2 for webhosting?
>
> I'm looking
uld require?)
iSCSI would be the next option, just have to find good pricing on
that. The assumption is redundancy and scaling would be handled by the
hardware (so there would be no SPOF or performance bottleneck there to
have to rely on software to fix)
Thanks for any info
- mike
[1] http://lists.
23 matches
Mail list logo
