On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On 11-09-19 11:02 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Brian J. Murrell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2. preventing the active node from being STONITHed when the resource
>>> is moved back to it's failed-and-restored node
On 11-09-19 11:02 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Brian J. Murrell
> wrote:
>>
>> 2. preventing the active node from being STONITHed when the resource
>> is moved back to it's failed-and-restored node after a failover.
>> IOW: BAR1 is available on foo1, which fail
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying to configure pacemaker (1.0.10) to make a single filesystem
> highly available by two nodes (please don't be distracted by the dangers
> of multiply mounted filesystems and clustering filesystems, etc., as I
> am ab
Hello Brian,
On 08/23/2011 10:56 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Hi All,
I am trying to configure pacemaker (1.0.10) to make a single filesystem
highly available by two nodes (please don't be distracted by the dangers
of multiply mounted filesystems and clustering filesystems, etc., as I
am absolut
Hi All,
I am trying to configure pacemaker (1.0.10) to make a single filesystem
highly available by two nodes (please don't be distracted by the dangers
of multiply mounted filesystems and clustering filesystems, etc., as I
am absolutely clear about that -- consider that I am using a filesystem
re
