On 07/21/2011 12:19 PM, Jed Smith wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Thank you again for all of the information.
>
> I labbed an in-place upgrade and the Corosync 1.4.0 compile brought
> down the 1.2.1-4ubuntu1 box. All I did was deploy from scratch, create
> a cluster with 1.2.1-4ubuntu1 and Pacemaker 1.0.10-4
Steve,
Thank you again for all of the information.
I labbed an in-place upgrade and the Corosync 1.4.0 compile brought
down the 1.2.1-4ubuntu1 box. All I did was deploy from scratch, create
a cluster with 1.2.1-4ubuntu1 and Pacemaker 1.0.10-4ubuntu3, then
compiled Corosync 1.4.0 and Pacemaker 1.0
On 07/18/2011 07:55 PM, Keisuke MORI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/7/19 Steven Dake :
>> On 07/18/2011 10:38 AM, Jed Smith wrote:
>>> Thank you for your reply.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Digimer wrote:
Is it possible that the switch dropped the multicast group, and didn't
reform i
Hi,
2011/7/19 Steven Dake :
> On 07/18/2011 10:38 AM, Jed Smith wrote:
>> Thank you for your reply.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Digimer wrote:
>>> Is it possible that the switch dropped the multicast group, and didn't
>>> reform it fast enough to prevent the cluster from partitioning?
On 07/18/2011 04:21 PM, Jed Smith wrote:
> Steven,
>
> Thank you very much for the reply and information.
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Steven Dake wrote:
>> My recommendation to you is to update to a 1.3 or 1.4 series. Both of
>> these have very tight maintenance rules around what goes
Steven,
Thank you very much for the reply and information.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Steven Dake wrote:
> My recommendation to you is to update to a 1.3 or 1.4 series. Both of
> these have very tight maintenance rules around what goes in (ie: its not
> tip development work).
I will ind
On 07/18/2011 10:38 AM, Jed Smith wrote:
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Digimer wrote:
>> Is it possible that the switch dropped the multicast group, and didn't
>> reform it fast enough to prevent the cluster from partitioning?
>
> Our network guy says that the
Thank you for your reply.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Digimer wrote:
> Is it possible that the switch dropped the multicast group, and didn't
> reform it fast enough to prevent the cluster from partitioning?
Our network guy says that the switches do not look at multicast
traffic, they merel
On 07/18/2011 12:17 PM, Jed Smith wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> I am not subscribed to the list (yet, waiting on confirmation) so
> please CC me on all replies.
>
> My employer has several deployments of Pacemaker on top of Corosync
> and we have recently been hitting this:
>
> Jul 18 12:01:05
I apologize for omitting this information:
* Corosync 1.2.1-4ubuntu1
* Pacemaker 1.0.10-4ubuntu3
Obviously, stock straight from the repos.
--
Jed Smith
j...@jedsmith.org
___
Openais mailing list
Openais@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux
Good morning,
I am not subscribed to the list (yet, waiting on confirmation) so
please CC me on all replies.
My employer has several deployments of Pacemaker on top of Corosync
and we have recently been hitting this:
Jul 18 12:01:05 corosync[6065]: [TOTEM ] FAILED TO RECEIVE
Jul 18 12:01:
11 matches
Mail list logo