Hello everyone!
Today I are proud to announce the release of `crmsh` version 2.1.7!
The major new thing in this release is a backports of the events-based
alerts support from the 2.3 branch.
Big thanks to Hideo Yamauchi for his patience and testing of the
alerts backport.
This time, the list of
On 09/01/2016 06:50 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> Thanks, got it.
> So, is it better to use "two_node: 1" or, as suggested else where, or
> "no-quorum-policy=stop"?
As said by Ken with Corosync 2 "two_node:1" is definitely the way to go.
"no-quorum-policy=stop" was what I was suspecting to be the c
Team
good work on the new version, appreciated.
Just a quick question:
If "scripts: no-quorum-policy=ignore" is becoming depreciated, how are we
to manage two node (e.g. test) clusters that require this work around since
quorum state on a single node is an odd state.
Regards
Darren Thompso
Dear Ken,
Thanks for your reply. That configuration in Ubuntu works perfectly fine, the
problem is that in CentOS 7 for some reason I am not even able to do a "service
pacemaker stop" of the node that is running as master (with the slave off too)
because it will have some failed actions that do
On 09/01/2016 09:07 AM, Darren Thompson wrote:
> Team
>
> good work on the new version, appreciated.
>
> Just a quick question:
>
> If "scripts: no-quorum-policy=ignore" is becoming depreciated, how are
> we to manage two node (e.g. test) clusters that require this work
> around since quorum state
Darren Thompson writes:
> Just a quick question:
>
> If "scripts: no-quorum-policy=ignore" is becoming depreciated, how are we
> to manage two node (e.g. test) clusters that require this work around since
> quorum state on a single node is an odd state.
>
Hi Darren,
There are better mechanisms
Hi
We are using Corosync and Pacemaker in RHEL7.2.
When we change an option in the file /etc/corosync/corosync.conf (or add
nodes), do we need to restart the pacemakerd service? Or is one of the
following commands enough?
- /usr/sbin/corosync-cfgtool -R
- pcs cluster reload corosync
Thanks
--
On 08/31/2016 11:50 PM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> Thanks, got it.
> So, is it better to use "two_node: 1" or, as suggested else where, or
> "no-quorum-policy=stop"?
I'd prefer "two_node: 1" and letting pacemaker's options default. But
see the votequorum(5) man page for what two_node implies -- most
Hi Ken,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:31:05AM -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 08/30/2016 05:46 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> > illumos (and Solaris 11) delivers ksh93, that is fully Bourn compatible,
> > but not with the bash extension of "local" variables, that is not Bourn
> > shell. It is supported
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:39:22AM -0500, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 2016-08-31 03:59, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:32:36PM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
>
> >>I expect you're being deliberately obtuse.
> >
> >Not sure why do you think that
>
> Because the point I was tryi
On 09/01/2016 10:12 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> There is no other way to tell the UNIX/Linux system which
> interpreter to use. Or am I missing something?
Yes: I'm not talking about how it works, I'm talking about how it
doesn't. You can tell the system which interpreter to use, but the
system
Thank you.
Comprehensively answered.
On 1 Sep 2016 6:27 PM, "Kristoffer Grönlund" wrote:
> Darren Thompson writes:
>
> > Just a quick question:
> >
> > If "scripts: no-quorum-policy=ignore" is becoming depreciated, how are we
> > to manage two node (e.g. test) clusters that require this work
Hi,
>> If "scripts: no-quorum-policy=ignore" is becoming depreciated
Are there any plans to get rid of this option?
Am I missing something?
PS: this option is very useful (vital) to me. And "two_node" option won't
replace it.
Thank you,
Kostia
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Darren Thompson
w
13 matches
Mail list logo
