On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 3:47 PM Ulrich Windl
wrote:
>
> >>> Antony Stone schrieb am 06.08.2021 um
> 14:41 in
> Nachricht <202108061441.59936.antony.st...@ha.open.source.it>:
> ...
> > location pref_A GroupA rule ‑inf: site ne cityA
> > location pref_B GroupB rule ‑inf: site ne cityB
>
On Friday 06 August 2021 at 14:47:03, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Antony Stone schrieb am 06.08.2021 um 14:41
>
> > location pref_A GroupA rule ‑inf: site ne cityA
> > location pref_B GroupB rule ‑inf: site ne cityB
>
> I'm wondering whether the first is equivalentto
> location pref_A GroupA
>>> Antony Stone schrieb am 06.08.2021 um
14:41 in
Nachricht <202108061441.59936.antony.st...@ha.open.source.it>:
...
> location pref_A GroupA rule ‑inf: site ne cityA
> location pref_B GroupB rule ‑inf: site ne cityB
I'm wondering whether the first is equivalentto
location pref_A
Hi!
Nice to hear. What could be "interesting" is how stable the WAN-type of
corosync communication works.
If it's not that stable, the cluster could try to fence nodes rather
frequently. OK, you disabled fencing; maybe it works without.
Did you tune the parameters?
Regards,
Ulrich
>>> Antony
