13.01.2014, 02:51, "Andrew Beekhof" :
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 9:55 pm, Andrey Groshev wrote:
>
>> 10.01.2014, 14:31, "Andrey Groshev" :
>>> 10.01.2014, 14:01, "Andrew Beekhof" :
On 10 Jan 2014, at 5:03 pm, Andrey Groshev wrote:
> 10.01.2014, 05:29, "Andrew Beekhof" :
>> On
Hi
I have 3 node postgresql cluster.
It work well. But I have some trobule with change master.
For now, if I need change master, I must:
1) Stop PGSQL on each node and cluster service
2) Start Setup new manual PGSQL replication
3) Change attributes on each node for point to new master
4) Stop PGS
13.01.2014, 02:51, "Andrew Beekhof" :
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 6:18 pm, Andrey Groshev wrote:
>
>> 10.01.2014, 10:15, "Andrew Beekhof" :
>>> On 10 Jan 2014, at 4:38 pm, Andrey Groshev wrote:
10.01.2014, 09:06, "Andrew Beekhof" :
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 3:51 pm, Andrey Groshev wrote:
>>
On 2014-01-12T18:53:50, John Wei wrote:
> I believe corosync does support this. Can someone point me to the document
> on how to do this.
Just configure corosync to use the private network interface via the
bindnetaddr.
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennife
Hi !
Thanks for answer.
I'm not trying to use shorewall as a ms resource. Let me explain :
I have 2 nodes. All resources are always on the same node (using
group and constraints) but what I want to do is to start a
shorewall on the "passive" node.
Hi,
I found a situation using pacemaker 1.1.10 on RHEL6.5 where the output
of "crm_resource -L" is not trust-able, shortly after a node is booted.
Here is the output from crm_resource -L on one of the nodes in a two
node cluster (the one that was not rebooted):
st-fencing (stonith:fence_foo
On 13 Jan 2014, at 8:31 pm, Andrey Groshev wrote:
>
>
> 13.01.2014, 02:51, "Andrew Beekhof" :
>> On 10 Jan 2014, at 9:55 pm, Andrey Groshev wrote:
>>
>>> 10.01.2014, 14:31, "Andrey Groshev" :
10.01.2014, 14:01, "Andrew Beekhof" :
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 5:03 pm, Andrey Groshev wro
On 14 Jan 2014, at 5:13 am, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found a situation using pacemaker 1.1.10 on RHEL6.5 where the output
> of "crm_resource -L" is not trust-able, shortly after a node is booted.
>
> Here is the output from crm_resource -L on one of the nodes in a two
> nod
On 13 Jan 2014, at 8:32 pm, Andrey Rogovsky wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have 3 node postgresql cluster.
> It work well. But I have some trobule with change master.
>
> For now, if I need change master, I must:
> 1) Stop PGSQL on each node and cluster service
> 2) Start Setup new manual PGSQL replication
On 19 Dec 2013, at 1:08 am, Gaëtan Slongo wrote:
> Hi !
>
> I'm currently building a 2 node cluster for firewalling.
> I would like to run a shorewall on both on the master and the "Slave"
> node. I tried many things but nothing works as expected. Shorewall
> configurations are good.
> What I w
Hi,
> but after some tests something went wrong and i don't know what and why and
how to get it back working ... now when i start crm, master is PRI, but slave gets
into HS:ASYNC state .. and when master fails, and slave gets into HS:alone state
It is PostgreSQL to select the node whether "sync
Apart from anything else, your timeout needs to be bigger:
Jan 13 12:21:36 [17223] dev-cluster2-node1.unix.tensor.ru stonith-ng: (
commands.c:1321 ) error: log_operation: Operation 'reboot' [11331] (call
2 from crmd.17227) for host 'dev-cluster2-node2.unix.tensor.ru' with device
'st1' r
On 14 Jan 2014, at 1:19 pm, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Apart from anything else, your timeout needs to be bigger:
>
> Jan 13 12:21:36 [17223] dev-cluster2-node1.unix.tensor.ru stonith-ng: (
> commands.c:1321 ) error: log_operation: Operation 'reboot' [11331] (call
> 2 from crmd.17227) for
Ok, here's what happens:
1. node2 is lost
2. fencing of node2 starts
3. node2 reboots (and cluster starts)
4. node2 returns to the membership
5. node2 is marked as a cluster member
6. DC tries to bring it into the cluster, but needs to cancel the active
transition first.
Which is a problem sin
14.01.2014, 06:25, "Andrew Beekhof" :
> Apart from anything else, your timeout needs to be bigger:
>
> Jan 13 12:21:36 [17223] dev-cluster2-node1.unix.tensor.ru stonith-ng: (
> commands.c:1321 ) error: log_operation: Operation 'reboot' [11331] (call 2
> from crmd.17227) for host 'dev-cluste
14.01.2014, 07:00, "Andrew Beekhof" :
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 1:19 pm, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> Apart from anything else, your timeout needs to be bigger:
>>
>> Jan 13 12:21:36 [17223] dev-cluster2-node1.unix.tensor.ru stonith-ng: (
>> commands.c:1321 ) error: log_operation: Operation 'reb
On 14 Jan 2014, at 3:34 pm, Andrey Groshev wrote:
>
>
> 14.01.2014, 06:25, "Andrew Beekhof" :
>> Apart from anything else, your timeout needs to be bigger:
>>
>> Jan 13 12:21:36 [17223] dev-cluster2-node1.unix.tensor.ru stonith-ng: (
>> commands.c:1321 ) error: log_operation: Operation '
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 08:09 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> The local cib hasn't caught up yet by the looks of it.
Should crm_resource actually be [mis-]reporting as if it were
knowledgeable when it's not though? IOW is this expected behaviour or
should it be considered a bug? Should I open a
Hi All,
I contributed next bugzilla by a problem to occur for the difference of the
timing of the attribute update by attrd before.
* https://developerbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2528
We can evade this problem now by using crmd-transition-delay parameter.
I confirmed whether I cou
On 14 Jan 2014, at 3:41 pm, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 08:09 +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> The local cib hasn't caught up yet by the looks of it.
>
> Should crm_resource actually be [mis-]reporting as if it were
> knowledgeable when it's not though? IOW is t
On 14 Jan 2014, at 3:52 pm, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I contributed next bugzilla by a problem to occur for the difference of the
> timing of the attribute update by attrd before.
> * https://developerbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2528
>
> We can evade this pro
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for comments.
> Are you using the new attrd code or the legacy stuff?
I use new attrd.
>
> If you're not using corosync 2.x or see:
>
> crm_notice("Starting mainloop...");
>
> then its the old code. The new code could also be used with CMAN but isn't
> configured t
On 14 Jan 2014, at 4:13 pm, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thank you for comments.
>
>> Are you using the new attrd code or the legacy stuff?
>
> I use new attrd.
And the values are not being sent to the cib at the same time?
>
>>
>> If you're not using corosync 2.x or
Hi Andrew,
> >> Are you using the new attrd code or the legacy stuff?
> >
> > I use new attrd.
>
> And the values are not being sent to the cib at the same time?
As far as I looked. . .
When the transmission of the attribute of attrd of the node was late, a leader
of attrd seemed to send an a
On 14 Jan 2014, at 4:33 pm, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
Are you using the new attrd code or the legacy stuff?
>>>
>>> I use new attrd.
>>
>> And the values are not being sent to the cib at the same time?
>
> As far as I looked. . .
> When the transmission of the att
14.01.2014, 07:47, "Andrew Beekhof" :
> Ok, here's what happens:
>
> 1. node2 is lost
> 2. fencing of node2 starts
> 3. node2 reboots (and cluster starts)
> 4. node2 returns to the membership
> 5. node2 is marked as a cluster member
> 6. DC tries to bring it into the cluster, but needs to cancel
26 matches
Mail list logo
