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 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
On Sat, 2021-10-30 at 21:17 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> On 29.10.2021 18:37, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> ...
> > > > > To address the original question, this is the log sequence I
> > > > > find
> > > > > most
> > > > > relevant:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oct 22 12:21:09.389 jangcluster-srv-2
On 29.10.2021 18:37, Ken Gaillot wrote:
...
To address the original question, this is the log sequence I find
most
relevant:
> Oct 22 12:21:09.389 jangcluster-srv-2 pacemaker-
> schedulerd[776553]
> (unpack_rsc_op_failure) warning: Unexpected result
On Fri, 2021-10-29 at 18:18 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> On 29.10.2021 18:16, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > On 29.10.2021 17:53, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2021-10-29 at 13:59 +, Gerry R Sommerville wrote:
> > > > Hey Andrei,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your response again. The
On 29.10.2021 18:16, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> On 29.10.2021 17:53, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On Fri, 2021-10-29 at 13:59 +, Gerry R Sommerville wrote:
>>> Hey Andrei,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your response again. The cluster nodes and remote hosts
>>> each share two networks, however there is no
On 29.10.2021 17:53, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-10-29 at 13:59 +, Gerry R Sommerville wrote:
>> Hey Andrei,
>>
>> Thanks for your response again. The cluster nodes and remote hosts
>> each share two networks, however there is no routing between them. I
>> don't suppose there is a
On Fri, 2021-10-29 at 13:59 +, Gerry R Sommerville wrote:
> Hey Andrei,
>
> Thanks for your response again. The cluster nodes and remote hosts
> each share two networks, however there is no routing between them. I
> don't suppose there is a configuration parameter we can set to tell
>
Hey Andrei,
Thanks for your response again. The cluster nodes and remote hosts each share two networks, however there is no routing between them. I don't suppose there is a configuration parameter we can set to tell Pacemaker to try communicating with the remotes using multiple IP addresses?
On 28.10.2021 20:13, Gerry R Sommerville wrote:
>
> What we also found to be interesting is that if the cluster is only using a
> single heartbeat ring, then srv-2 will get fenced instead, and the
So as already suspected you did not actually isolate the node at all.
> pacemaker-remote
Hey Andrei, UlrichI am working with Janghyuk on his testing effort. Thank you for your responses, you have clarified some of the terminology we have been misusing.As Janghyuk mentions previously, we have two "full cluster" nodes using two-node quorum and multiple heart beat rings + two more
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:30 AM Ulrich Windl
wrote:
>
> Fencing _is_ a part of failover!
>
As any blanket answer this is mostly incorrect in this context.
There are two separate objects here - remote host itself and pacemaker
resource used to connect to and monitor state of remote host.
Fencing _is_ a part of failover!
>>> "Janghyuk Boo" schrieb am 26.10.2021 um 22:09 in
Nachricht
:
Dear Community ,
Thank you Ken for your reply last time.
I attached the log messages as requested from the last thread.
I have a Pacemaker cluster with two cluster nodes with two network interfaces
13 matches
Mail list logo
