On 06/15/2012 06:19 PM, Phil Frost wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 11:55 AM, David Vossel wrote:
>>> If resC is stopped
>>> resource stop resC
>>>
>>> then drbd_nfsexports is demoted, and resB and resC will stop. Why is
>>> that? I'd expect that resC, being listed last in both the colocation
>>> and
>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Phil Frost"
> To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 10:39:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Confusing semantics of colocation sets (stopping
> resource stops others in colocation / order
> sets)
>
> On 06/15/2012 05:00 PM, Jake Smit
On 06/18/2012 04:14 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 18.06.2012 16:39, Phil Frost wrote:
>> I'm attempting to configure an NFS cluster, and I've observed that under
>> some failure conditions, resources that depend on a failed resource
>> simply stop, and no migration to another node is attempted, e
On 06/15/2012 05:00 PM, Jake Smith wrote:
# also creates three sets
colocation colo inf: A B C:Master D E
# B -> A -> C -> E -> D
Yes because C is a stateful resource. When you tested this I assume you used
Dummy resource for A,B,D,E and a Stateful resource for primitive_C and created
a ma
On 06/18/2012 10:05 AM, Jake Smith wrote:
Why don't you have vg_nfsexports in the group? Not really any point to
a group with only one resource...
You need an order constraint here too... Pacemaker needs to know in
what order to start/stop/promote things. Something like: order
ord_drbd_maste
On 06/18/2012 10:14 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
Sets (constraints with more then two members) are evaluated in the
different order.
Try
colocation colo_drbd_master inf: ( drbd_nfsexports_ms:Master ) (
vg_nfsexports ) ( test )
I'm sure that's the wrong order. I've put the parens on each resour
18.06.2012 16:39, Phil Frost wrote:
> I'm attempting to configure an NFS cluster, and I've observed that under
> some failure conditions, resources that depend on a failed resource
> simply stop, and no migration to another node is attempted, even though
> a manual migration demonstrates the other
- Original Message -
> From: "Phil Frost"
> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager"
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 9:39:48 AM
> Subject: [Pacemaker] resources not migrating when some are not runnable on
> one node, maybe because of groups or
> master/slave clones?
>
> I'm attemptin
I'm attempting to configure an NFS cluster, and I've observed that under
some failure conditions, resources that depend on a failed resource
simply stop, and no migration to another node is attempted, even though
a manual migration demonstrates the other node can run all resources,
and the reso
Von: Florian Haas [mailto:flor...@hastexo.com]
> Or this:
> http://www.linux-ha.org/doc/dev-guides/ra-dev-guide.html
Thank you! That's what I was looking for!
Cheers,
Andreas
-
CONET Solutions GmbH, Theodor-Heuss-Allee 19, 53773 Hennef.
Registergericht/Registration C
10 matches
Mail list logo