>>> Klaus Wenninger schrieb am 10.10.2016 um 20:42 in
Nachricht <0713ae34-7606-a82b-47f8-5cc64bfca...@redhat.com>:
> On 10/10/2016 08:35 PM, Eric Robinson wrote:
>> Basically, when we turn off a switch, I want to keep the cluster from
> failing over before Linux bonding has had a chance to recove
>>> Klaus Wenninger schrieb am 10.10.2016 um 20:04 in
Nachricht <936e4d4b-df5c-246d-4552-5678653b3...@redhat.com>:
> On 10/10/2016 06:58 PM, Eric Robinson wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification. So what's the easiest way to ensure that the
> cluster waits a desired timeout before deciding that a
>>> Chad Cravens schrieb am 10.10.2016 um 19:18 in
Nachricht
:
> The client has specifically said that they purposefully chosen not to
> implement Oracle RAC (I'm not sure why). It's a large program and the
Most of the time Oracle is a question of how many $$$ you have ;-)
> budget and technolog
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Ulrich Windl
wrote:
>
> My point is this: For a resource that can only exclusively run on one node,
> it's important that the other node is down before taking action. But for cLVM
> and OCFS2 the resources can run concurrently on each node,
Both require coordina
{ emmanuel segura schrieb am 10.10.2016 um 16:49 in
> Nachricht
> :
>
Node h01 (old DC) was fenced at Oct 10 10:06:33
Node h01 went down around Oct 10 10:06:37.
DLM noticed that on node h05:
Oct 10 10:06:44 h05 cluster-dlm[12063]: dlm_process_node: Removed inactive node
739512321: born-on=
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Digimer wrote:
>
> The only geo-located/stretch cluster approach that I've seen that makes
> any sense and seems genuinely safe is SUSE's 'pacemaker booth' project.
Also arriving in RHEL 7.3
Might be tech preview though.
__
Short version: How many missed arp_intervals does the bonding driver wait
before removing the PASSIVE slave from the bond?
Long version: I'm confused about this because I know the passive slave watches
for the active slave's arp broadcast as a way of knowing that the passive
slave's link is goo
Thanks for all suggestions. It is really odd for me that this usecase,
which is very basic for simple virtualization cluster, is not described
in every FAQ out there...
It appears that my setup is working correctly with non-symmetrical
ordering constraints:
Ordering Constraints:
start d
> As you probably know when manual maintenance is being done you might
> take advantage of that knowledge by e.g. unmanaging the cluster during that
> time.
We have a LOT of clusters to manage for a small team. I would prefer to just
have them survive brief network outages that last for a know
On 10/10/2016 08:35 PM, Eric Robinson wrote:
> Basically, when we turn off a switch, I want to keep the cluster from failing
> over before Linux bonding has had a chance to recover.
>
> I'm mostly interested in prventing false-positive cluster failovers that
> might occur during manual network m
Basically, when we turn off a switch, I want to keep the cluster from failing
over before Linux bonding has had a chance to recover.
I'm mostly interested in prventing false-positive cluster failovers that might
occur during manual network maintenance (for example, testing switch and link
outa
I'm mostly interested in prventing false-positive cluster failovers that might
occur during manual network maintenance (for example, testing switch and link
outages).
>> Thanks for the clarification. So what's the easiest way to ensure that the
>> cluster waits a
>> desired timeout before de
On 10/10/2016 06:58 PM, Eric Robinson wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. So what's the easiest way to ensure that the
> cluster waits a desired timeout before deciding that a re-convergence is
> necessary?
By raising the token (lost) timeout I would say.
Please correct my (Chrissie) but I
On 10/10/2016 06:56 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 10:21 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
>> On 10/10/2016 04:54 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2016 07:36 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
> On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>> 10.10.2016 14:
The client has specifically said that they purposefully chosen not to
implement Oracle RAC (I'm not sure why). It's a large program and the
budget and technology platforms were already put in place before I was
involved. In other words, I'm not sure why, not sure there's a reason, but
RedHat HA Clu
Thanks for the clarification. So what's the easiest way to ensure that the
cluster waits a desired timeout before deciding that a re-convergence is
necessary?
--
Eric Robinson
-Original Message-
From: Christine Caulfield [mailto:ccaul...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016
On 10/10/2016 10:21 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 04:54 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On 10/10/2016 07:36 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>>> 10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> 10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
>> Why are the order-cons
why you don't use oracle rac with asm?
2016-10-07 18:46 GMT+02:00 Chad Cravens :
> Hello:
>
> I'm working on a project where the client is using Oracle ASM (volume
> manager) for database storage. I have implemented a cluster before using
> LVM with ext4 and understand there are resource agents (
On 10/10/2016 04:54 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 07:36 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>> 10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
>>> On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
> Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
If they w
On 10/10/2016 07:36 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> 10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
>> On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>>> 10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
>>> If they were mandatory, then all the virtual machines would
{ocfs2}->{dlm}->{fencing}->{timeout}
2016-10-10 16:46 GMT+02:00 Ulrich Windl :
> Hi!
>
> I observed an interesting thing: In a three node cluster (SLES11 SP4) with
> cLVM and OCFS2 on top, one node was fenced as the OCFS2 filesystem was
> somehow busy on unmount. We have (for paranoid reasons ma
Hi!
I observed an interesting thing: In a three node cluster (SLES11 SP4) with cLVM
and OCFS2 on top, one node was fenced as the OCFS2 filesystem was somehow busy
on unmount. We have (for paranoid reasons mainly) an excessive long fencing
timout for SBD: 180 seconds
While one node was actually
On 10/10/2016 04:25 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 10/09/2016 11:02 PM, Digimer wrote:
>> On 09/10/16 11:58 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>> 10.10.2016 00:42, Eric Robinson пишет:
Digimer, thanks for your thoughts. Booth is one of the solutions I
looked at, but I don't like it because it is c
On 10/09/2016 11:02 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 09/10/16 11:58 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 10.10.2016 00:42, Eric Robinson пишет:
>>> Digimer, thanks for your thoughts. Booth is one of the solutions I
>>> looked at, but I don't like it because it is complex and difficult to
>>> implement
>>
>> HA is
x]
> Started: [ node01 ]
> Stopped: [ node02 ]
> root@node01:/usr/local/etc/log_zabbix#
>
>
> zabbix log;
>
> root@node01:/usr/local/etc# tail -f log_zabbix/zabbix_server.log
> 7360:20161010:011833.254 server #23 started [discoverer #5]
> 7363:20
On 10/10/2016 02:36 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> 10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
>> On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>>> 10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
>>> If they were mandatory, then all the virtual machines would
10.10.2016 15:11, Klaus Wenninger:
On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
If they were mandatory, then all the virtual machines would be
restarted when libvirtd restarts. This is not desired
On 10/10/2016 02:00 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>
> 10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
>> Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
>
> If they were mandatory, then all the virtual machines would be
> restarted when libvirtd restarts. This is not desired nor needed. When
> this hap
On 10/07/2016 11:10 PM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Our user may not necessarily use sdb.
>
> I confirmed that there was a method using WD service of corosync as one
> method not to use sdb.
> Pacemaker watches the process of pacemaker by WD service using CMAP and can
> carry
10.10.2016 14:32, Klaus Wenninger:
Why are the order-constraints between libvirt & vms optional?
If they were mandatory, then all the virtual machines would be restarted
when libvirtd restarts. This is not desired nor needed. When this
happens, the node is fenced because it is unable to rest
On 10/10/16 05:51, Eric Robinson wrote:
> I have about a dozen corosync+pacemaker clusters and I am just now getting
> around to understanding timeouts.
>
> Most of my corosync.conf files look something like this:
>
> version:2
> token: 5000
> token_retra
On 10/10/2016 10:17 AM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
> Hello.
>
> We are trying to migrate our services to relatively fresh version of
> cluster software. It is RHEL 7 with pacemaker 1.1.13-10. I’ve faced a
> problem when live migration of virtual machines is allowed. In short,
> I need to manage libvirtd,
> AFAIK, it _all_ ARP targets did not respond _once_ the link will be
> considered down
It would be great if someone could confirm that.
> after "Down Delay". I guess you want to use multiple (and the correct ones)
> ARP IP targets...
Yes, I use multiple targets, and arp_all_targets=any. Do
Thanks for all responses from Jan, Ulrich and Digimer !
We are already using bond'ed network interfaces, but we are also forced to go
across IP-subnets. Certain routes between routers can go and have gone missing.
This has happened for one of our node's public network, where it was
inaccessible
34 matches
Mail list logo
