On 2018-09-04 8:49 p.m., Ken Gaillot wrote:
On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 10:23 -0500, Ryan Thomas wrote:
I’m seeing unexpected behavior when using “unfencing” – I don’t think
I’m understanding it correctly. I configured a resource that
“requires unfencing” and have a custom fencing agent which
Update: It seems like fencing does work as I expected it to work. The
problem was with how I was testing it. I was seeing the node turned “off”
(isolated) and then “on” (unisolated) immediately which seemed wrong. This
was because the way I was turning the node off in my testing was to kill
On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 13:26 +, cfpubl...@verimatrix.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we have been using pacemaker 1.1.7 for many years on RedHat 6.
> Recently, we moved to RedHat 7.3 and pacemaker 1.1.17.
> Note that we build pacemaker from source RPMs and don’t use the
> packages supplied by
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 15:26 +0530, Prasad Nagaraj wrote:
> Hi Ken - Only if I turn off corosync on the node [ where I crashed
> pacemaker] other nodes are able to detect and put the node as
> OFFLINE.
> Do you have any other guidance or insights into this ?
Yes, corosync is the cluster membership
Hi Ken - Only if I turn off corosync on the node [ where I crashed
pacemaker] other nodes are able to detect and put the node as OFFLINE.
Do you have any other guidance or insights into this ?
Thanks
Prasad
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:33 PM Prasad Nagaraj
wrote:
> Hi Ken - Thanks for the
Hi all,
we have been using pacemaker 1.1.7 for many years on RedHat 6. Recently, we
moved to RedHat 7.3 and pacemaker 1.1.17.
Note that we build pacemaker from source RPMs and don’t use the packages
supplied by RedHat.
With pacemaker 1.1.17, we observe the following messages during startup of
On 27/09/18 20:16, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
> Christine Caulfield writes:
>
>> I'm also looking into high-res timestamps for logfiles too.
>
> Wouldn't that be a useful option for the syslog output as well? I'm
> sometimes concerned by the batching effect added by the transport
> between the
