Hi Steven,
On 04.08.2011, at 20:59, Steven Dake wrote:
> meaning the corosync community doesn't investigate redundant ring issues
> prior to corosync versions 1.4.1.
Sadly, we need to use the SLES version for support reasons.
I'll try to convince them to supply us with a fix for this problem.
I
On 08/04/2011 11:43 AM, Sebastian Kaps wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> On 04.08.2011, at 18:27, Steven Dake wrote:
>
>> redundant ring is only supported upstream in corosync 1.4.1 or later.
>
> What does "supported" mean in this context, exactly?
>
meaning the corosync community doesn't investigate r
Hi Steven,
On 04.08.2011, at 18:27, Steven Dake wrote:
> redundant ring is only supported upstream in corosync 1.4.1 or later.
What does "supported" mean in this context, exactly?
I'm asking, because we're having serious issues with these systems since
they went into production (the testing p
Hi Steven,
thanks for looking into this!
> This process pause message indicates the scheduler doesn't schedule
> corosync for 11 seconds which is greater then the failure detection
> timeouts. What does your config file look like? What load are you running?
The load at that point of time around
On 08/02/2011 11:53 PM, Sebastian Kaps wrote:
> Hi Steven!
>
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:45:46 -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
>> Which version of corosync?
>
> # corosync -v
> Corosync Cluster Engine, version '1.3.1'
> Copyright (c) 2006-2009 Red Hat, Inc.
>
> It's the version that comes with SLES11-SP1
On 08/03/2011 06:39 PM, Bob Schatz wrote:
> Steven,
>
> Are you planning on recording/taping it if I want to watch it later?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
Bob,
Yes I will record if I can beat elluminate into submission.
Regards
-steve
>
> -
On 08/03/2011 11:31 PM, Tegtmeier.Martin wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> in my case it is always the slower ring that fails (the 100MB network). Does
> rrp_mode passive expect both rings to have the same speed?
>
> Sebastian, can you confirm that in your environment also the slower ring
> fails?
>
>
On 08/04/2011 05:46 AM, Sebastian Kaps wrote:
> Hello,
>
> here's another problem we're having:
>
> Jul 31 03:51:02 node01 corosync[5870]: [TOTEM ] Process pause detected
> for 11149 ms, flushing membership messages.
This process pause message indicates the scheduler doesn't schedule
corosync f
Hello Martin,
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:31:07 +0200, Tegtmeier.Martin wrote:
in my case it is always the slower ring that fails (the 100MB
network). Does rrp_mode passive expect both rings to have the same
speed?
Sebastian, can you confirm that in your environment also the slower
ring fails?
I c
Hello,
here's another problem we're having:
Jul 31 03:51:02 node01 corosync[5870]: [TOTEM ] Process pause detected
for 11149 ms, flushing membership messages.
Jul 31 03:51:11 node01 corosync[5870]: [CLM ] CLM CONFIGURATION
CHANGE
Jul 31 03:51:11 node01 corosync[5870]: [CLM ] New Config
Hi,
This is the next DMC release 0.9.7. DMC is Pacemaker, Cluster Virtual Manager
and Storage/DRBD GUI written in Java.
The LVM plugins are now normal part of the GUI in the "Storage" view, where
you can create, delete physical volumes, volume groups, logical volumes,
resize them and create snaps
Hi, Andrew
I have some questions about pacemaker and gui.
As we know, current verion of pacemaker supports cman.It connects corosync
and pacemaker.
And cman is used in RHCS, too.
It connects corosync and rgmanager.
I'd like to know what differences cman in pacenaker and cman in RHCS. Are
they sa
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 03:42:15AM +0700, Max Arnold wrote:
> I'm stuck trying to get working virtual IP in combination with default
> gateway. I have two frontend VMs with Nginx and two gateway VMs...
Any ideas? Split the single asymmetric 4-node cluster to two separate 2-node
ones, so they wo
Hello again,
in my case it is always the slower ring that fails (the 100MB network). Does
rrp_mode passive expect both rings to have the same speed?
Sebastian, can you confirm that in your environment also the slower ring fails?
Thanks,
-Martin
-Original Message-
From: Tegtmeier.Mar
14 matches
Mail list logo
