On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On 13-02-24 07:56 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> Basically yes.
>> Stonith is the first stage of recovery and supposed to be at least
>> vaguely reliable.
>> Have you figured out why fencing is so broken?
>
> It wasn't really "broken" but
On 13-02-24 07:56 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> Basically yes.
> Stonith is the first stage of recovery and supposed to be at least
> vaguely reliable.
> Have you figured out why fencing is so broken?
It wasn't really "broken" but was in the process of being configured
when this situation arose.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Brian J. Murrell
wrote:
> I seem to have found a situation where pacemaker
> (pacemaker-1.1.7-6.el6.x86_64)
> refuses to stop (i.e. service pacemaker stop) on EL6.
>
> The status of the 2 node cluster was that the node being asked to stop
> (node2) was continuall
I seem to have found a situation where pacemaker (pacemaker-1.1.7-6.el6.x86_64)
refuses to stop (i.e. service pacemaker stop) on EL6.
The status of the 2 node cluster was that the node being asked to stop
(node2) was continually trying to stonith another node (node1) in the
cluster which was not r
