2010/10/7 Andrew Beekhof :
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Keisuke MORI
> wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> 2010/9/23 Andrew Beekhof :
>>> Pushed as:
>>> http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/8433015faf18
>>>
>>> Not sure about applying to 1.0 though, its a dramatic change in behavior.
>>
>> I w
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Keisuke MORI wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> 2010/9/23 Andrew Beekhof :
>> Pushed as:
>> http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/8433015faf18
>>
>> Not sure about applying to 1.0 though, its a dramatic change in behavior.
>
> I would like to backport this to 1.0.
> Woul
Andrew,
2010/9/23 Andrew Beekhof :
> Pushed as:
> http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/8433015faf18
>
> Not sure about applying to 1.0 though, its a dramatic change in behavior.
I would like to backport this to 1.0.
Would you agree with this?
Without this the failed node was not fenced
Hi Andrew,
> Sorry, it probably got rebased before I pushed it.
>
> http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/dd8e37df3e96 should be the
> right link
Thanks!!
Hideo Yamuachi.
--- Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Sorry, it probably got rebased before I pushed it.
>
> http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacem
Sorry, it probably got rebased before I pushed it.
http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/dd8e37df3e96 should be the
right link
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:51 AM, wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> Pushed as:
>> http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/8433015faf18
>>
>> Not sure about applying
Hi Andrew,
> Pushed as:
>http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/8433015faf18
>
> Not sure about applying to 1.0 though, its a dramatic change in behavior.
The change of this link is not found.
Where did you update it?
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Pushed
Pushed as:
http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/8433015faf18
Not sure about applying to 1.0 though, its a dramatic change in behavior.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM, wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thank you for comment.
>
>> A long time ago in a galaxy far away, some messaging layers used
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for comment.
> A long time ago in a galaxy far away, some messaging layers used to
> loose quite a few actions, including stops.
> About the same time, we decided that fencing because a stop action was
> lost wasn't a good idea.
>
> The rationale was that if the operation eve
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:59 AM, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Node was in state that the load was very high, and we confirmed monitor
> movement of Pacemeker.
> Action Lost occurred in stop movement after the error of the monitor occurred.
>
> Sep 8 20:02:22 cgl54 crmd: [3507]: ERROR: print_elem: Aborting
Hi,
Node was in state that the load was very high, and we confirmed monitor
movement of Pacemeker.
Action Lost occurred in stop movement after the error of the monitor occurred.
Sep 8 20:02:22 cgl54 crmd: [3507]: ERROR: print_elem: Aborting transition,
action lost: [Action 9]:
In-flight (id: p
10 matches
Mail list logo