On 8 Oct 2014, at 2:09 am, Brian J. Murrell (brian)
wrote:
> Given a 2 node pacemaker-1.1.10-14.el6_5.3 cluster with nodes "node5"
> and "node6" I saw an "unknown" third node being added to the cluster,
> but only on node5:
Is either node using dhcp?
I would guess node6 got a new IP address (o
On 8 Oct 2014, at 9:20 am, Felix Zachlod wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> Am 06.10.2014 04:30, schrieb Andrew Beekhof:
>>
>> On 3 Oct 2014, at 5:07 am, Felix Zachlod wrote:
>>
>>> Am 02.10.2014 18:02, schrieb Digimer:
On 02/10/14 02:44 AM, Felix Zachlod wrote:
> I am currently running 8.4
Hello Andrew,
Am 06.10.2014 04:30, schrieb Andrew Beekhof:
On 3 Oct 2014, at 5:07 am, Felix Zachlod wrote:
Am 02.10.2014 18:02, schrieb Digimer:
On 02/10/14 02:44 AM, Felix Zachlod wrote:
I am currently running 8.4.5 on to of Debian Wheezy with Pacemaker 1.1.7
Please upgrade to 1.1.10+!
thanks
-Original Message-
From: Ken Gaillot [mailto:kjgai...@gleim.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2014 7:24 AM
To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] runing abitrary script when resource fails
On 10/06/2014 06:20 AM, Alex Samad - Yieldbroker wrote:
> Is it possible to
Given a 2 node pacemaker-1.1.10-14.el6_5.3 cluster with nodes "node5"
and "node6" I saw an "unknown" third node being added to the cluster,
but only on node5:
Sep 18 22:52:16 node5 corosync[17321]: [pcmk ] notice: pcmk_peer_update:
Transitional membership event on ring 12: memb=2, new=0, lost=
Andrew Beekhof writes:
>> Maybe not, the collocation should be sufficient, but even without the
>> orders, unclean VMs fencing is tried with other Stonith devices.
>
> Which other devices? The config you sent through didnt have any
> others.
Sorry I sent it to linux-cluster mailing-list but not
