then you could fence it from node 2.
Others on the list may think of something I haven't considered here.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:43 PM Harvey Shepherd
mailto:harvey.sheph...@aviatnet.com>> wrote:
Thanks for your response Reid. What you say makes sense, and under normal
circumsta
uster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker Shutdown
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:42 PM Harvey Shepherd
mailto:harvey.sheph...@aviatnet.com>> wrote:
Hi All,
I'm running Pacemaker 2.0.3 on a two-node cluster
Hi All,
I'm running Pacemaker 2.0.3 on a two-node cluster, controlling 40+ resources
which are a mixture of clones and other resources that are colocated with the
master instance of certain clones. I've noticed that if I terminate pacemaker
on the node that is hosting the master instances of th
help' to
users-requ...@clusterlabs.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
users-ow...@clusterlabs.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re:
Contents
I've been experiencing exactly the same issue. Pacemaker prioritises restarting
the failed resource over maintaining a master instance. In my case I used
crm_simulate to analyse the actions planned and taken by pacemaker during
resource recovery. It showed that the system did plan to failover th
er Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ClusterLabs] Problems with master/slave failovers
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:59 AM Ken Gaillot wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 23:30 +, Harvey Shepherd wrote:
> > > The "transition summ
ols installed or in use (it's a very isolated system with very few
resources installed), although I was using crm_monitor at the time. Does that
run crm_resource under the hood?
Regards,
Harvey
____
From: Harvey Shepherd
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2019 9:26 a.
efore promoting the slave.
From: Users on behalf of Andrei Borzenkov
Sent: Tuesday, 2 July 2019 3:42 p.m.
To: users@clusterlabs.org
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ClusterLabs] Problems with master/slave failovers
02.07.2019 2:30, Harvey Shepherd пишет:
>
> The "transition summary" is just a resource-by-resource list, not the
> order things will be done. The "executing cluster transition" section
> is the order things are being done.
Thanks Ken. I think that's where the problem is originating. If you look at the
"executing cluster transition" sect
hen-action="start".
As I mentioned in my last message I have trouble with using
first-action="promote" because some of the dependents are clone resources. I
just tried it again and the dependent clones only start on the master node with
this setting. What I really need is a f
d let you know how it goes.
Thanks,
Harvey
On 30 Jun 2019 5:14 pm, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
28.06.2019 9:45, Andrei Borzenkov пишет:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 7:24 AM Harvey Shepherd
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>> I'm running Pacemaker 2.0.2 on a two node
ster/slave failovers
29.06.2019 6:01, Harvey Shepherd пишет:
>
> As you can see, it eventually gives up in the transition attempt and starts a
> new one. Eventually the failed king resource master has had time to come back
> online and it then just promotes it again and forgets about tryi
abs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ClusterLabs] Problems with master/slave failovers
On Fri, 2019-06-28 at 07:36 +, Harvey Shepherd wrote:
> Thanks for your reply Andrei. Whilst I understand what you say about
> the difficulties of diagnosing
re-promote it to master rather than failing over. Could these
transitions be being aborted due to them taking too long to complete? If so, is
there a configuration option I can set to increase the timeout?
Thanks,
Harvey
____
From: Users on behalf of Harvey Shepher
help.
On 28 Jun 2019 6:46 pm, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 7:24 AM Harvey Shepherd
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> I'm running Pacemaker 2.0.2 on a two node cluster. It runs one master/slave
> resource (I'll refer to it as the king resource) and about
Hi All,
I'm running Pacemaker 2.0.2 on a two node cluster. It runs one master/slave
resource (I'll refer to it as the king resource) and about 20 other resources
which are a mixture of:
- resources that only run on the king resource master node (colocation
constraint with a score of INFINITY
_
From: Users on behalf of Andrei Borzenkov
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2019 4:47 a.m.
To: users@clusterlabs.org
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ClusterLabs] Strange monitor return code log for LSB
resource
25.06.2019 16:53, Harvey Shepherd пишет:
> Hi All,
>
>
> I have a 2 node cluster run
B in the CIB.
2. Why does the status operation always return 0 (running) and the monitor
operation always returns 7 (not running)?
2. Why is fail-count not being incremented even though failures are being
logged?
I would really appreciate any pointers that anyone could give me. Perhaps
manager recover.
ocf_log err "Unexpected error, cannot promote"
exit $rc
;;
esac
return $OCF_SUCCESS
}
main_demote() {
main_start_backup
return $OCF_SUCCESS
}
Thanks again for any help you can provide.
Regards,
Harvey
______
__
From: Users on behalf of Ken Gaillot
Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2019 5:40 a.m.
To: Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker not reacting as I would expect
when two resources fail at the
Hi All,
I'm running Pacemaker 2.0.1 on a cluster containing two nodes; one master and
one slave. I have a main master/slave resource (m_main_system), a group of
resources that run in active-active mode (active_active - i.e. run on both
nodes), and a group that runs in active-disabled mode (snm
21 matches
Mail list logo
