Hi Hideo-san,
thank you very much for information.
Will try it asap.
Best,
Vladislav
06.04.2011 04:54, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Vladislav,
>
> I confirmed that a problem was improved with a patch of Andrew.
> Please please try a patch in the environment that your problem produced.
Hi Vladislav,
I confirmed that a problem was improved with a patch of Andrew.
Please please try a patch in the environment that your problem produced.
* http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2574
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Fri, 2011/4/1, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote
01.04.2011 11:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov
> wrote:
>> 01.04.2011 10:20, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> The clone instance numbers for anonymous clones are an implementation
>>> detail and nothing should be inferred from them.
>>> Did anything actually
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 01.04.2011 10:20, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> The clone instance numbers for anonymous clones are an implementation
>> detail and nothing should be inferred from them.
>> Did anything actually get moved or just the numbers changed?
>>
>
> Ma
01.04.2011 10:20, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> The clone instance numbers for anonymous clones are an implementation
> detail and nothing should be inferred from them.
> Did anything actually get moved or just the numbers changed?
>
Main inconvenience is that all dependent resources are forcibly resta
The clone instance numbers for anonymous clones are an implementation
detail and nothing should be inferred from them.
Did anything actually get moved or just the numbers changed?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:07 AM, wrote:
> Hi Vladislav,
>
> Thank you for comment.
>
> As for us, this problem is t
Hi Vladislav,
Thank you for comment.
As for us, this problem is taking place in the top of 1.0.10 and 1.0.
Though possibly there may be this problem from a considerably version in front.
Let's wait for comment of Andrew.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Thu, 2011/3/31, Vladislav Bogdan
Hi,
31.03.2011 04:15, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
[...]
> Node srv01 (45f985d7-e7c8-4834-b01b-16b99526672b): online
> main_rsc(ocf::pacemaker:Dummy) Started
> prmDummy1:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy) Started
> prmPingd:0 (ocf::pacemaker:ping) Started
> N
Hi All,
We tested the trouble of the clone resource in the next procedure.
Step1) We start a cluster in three nodes.
Last updated: Thu Mar 31 10:01:47 2011
Stack: Heartbeat
Current DC: srv03 (e2ffc1ed-3ebe-47e2-b51b-b0f04b454311) - partition with quorum
Version: 1.0.10-9342a4147fc6