On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 11:22 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> On 05.11.2021 01:20, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > > There are two issues discussed in this thread.
> > >
> > > 1. Remote node is fenced when connection with this node is lost.
> > > For
> > > all
> > > I can tell this is intended and expected
On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 05:28 +, Neitzert, Greg A wrote:
> Hello,
> With a Pacemaker 1.1.13/Corosync 2.3.5 cluster is it possible to
> define a relationship between two resources so that:
> B depends on A (a normal order constraint)
> AND
> If either fails, they both need to be stopped and
On 05.11.2021 01:20, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>
>> There are two issues discussed in this thread.
>>
>> 1. Remote node is fenced when connection with this node is lost. For
>> all
>> I can tell this is intended and expected behavior. That was the
>> original
>> question.
>
> It's expected only because
>>> "Neitzert, Greg A" schrieb am 05.11.2021 um
06:28 in
Nachricht
> Hello,
>
> With a Pacemaker 1.1.13/Corosync 2.3.5 cluster is it possible to define a
> relationship between two resources so that:
>
> 1. B depends on A (a normal order constraint)
>
> AND
>
> 2. If either
