13.02.2018 16:41, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
Let's put that differently. With fencing you can make the
> loss-detection more aggressive and thus more prone to false-positives
> without risking a split-brain situation. (Actually without fencing
> you can never be really sure if the other side is rea
13.02.2018 16:41, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
Let's put that differently. With fencing you can make the
> loss-detection more aggressive and thus more prone to false-positives
> without risking a split-brain situation. (Actually without fencing
> you can never be really sure if the other side is rea
On 2018-02-13 05:46 AM, Maxim wrote:
> 12.02.2018 19:31, Digimer пишет:
>> Without fencing, all bets are off. Please enable it and see if the
>> issue remains
> Seems, i know [in theory] about the fencing ability and its importance
> (although I've never configured it so far).
> But i don't undest
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 13:46 +0300, Maxim wrote:
> 12.02.2018 19:31, Digimer пишет:
> > > should be using the cman pluging with corosync 1. May I ask why
> you
> > don't use EL7 if you want such a recent stack?
> For historical reasons. Let's say so. I've another software that
> built
> for RHEL
On 02/13/2018 01:28 PM, Maxim wrote:
> 13.02.2018 14:03, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
>> - fencing helps you turning the 'maybe the node is down - it doesn't
> > respond within x milli-seconds' into certainty that your node is dead
> > and won't interfere with the rest of the cluster
> >
> > Regards, Kl
13.02.2018 14:03, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
- fencing helps you turning the 'maybe the node is down - it doesn't
> respond within x milli-seconds' into certainty that your node is dead
> and won't interfere with the rest of the cluster
>
> Regards, Klaus
It is clear. But will it force pacemaker t
On 02/13/2018 11:46 AM, Maxim wrote:
> 12.02.2018 19:31, Digimer пишет:
>> Without fencing, all bets are off. Please enable it and see if the
> > issue remains
> Seems, i know [in theory] about the fencing ability and its importance
> (although I've never configured it so far).
> But i don't undes
12.02.2018 19:31, Digimer пишет:
Without fencing, all bets are off. Please enable it and see if the
> issue remains
Seems, i know [in theory] about the fencing ability and its importance
(although I've never configured it so far).
But i don't undestand how it would help in the situtions of the
12.02.2018 18:46, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
> Maybe a few notes on the other way ;-) In general it is not easy to
> have a reliable answer to the question if the other node is down
> within just let's say 100ms. Think of network-hickups, scheduling
> issues and alike ... But if you are willing to acc
On 2018-02-12 08:15 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> On 02/12/2018 01:02 PM, Maxim wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> [Sorry for a message duplication. Web mail client ruined the
>> formatting of the previous e-mail =( ]
>>
>> There is a simple configuration of two cluster nodes (built via RHEL 6
>> pcs interface)
On 02/12/2018 04:34 PM, Maxim wrote:
> 12.02.2018 16:15, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
>> On 02/12/2018 01:02 PM, Maxim wrote:
> > fencing-disabled is probably due to it being a test-setup ... RHEL 6
> > pcs being made for configuring a cman-pacemaker-setup I'm not sure if
> > it is advisable to do a set
12.02.2018 16:15, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
On 02/12/2018 01:02 PM, Maxim wrote:
> fencing-disabled is probably due to it being a test-setup ... RHEL 6
> pcs being made for configuring a cman-pacemaker-setup I'm not sure if
> it is advisable to do a setup for a corosync-2 pacemaker setup with
> th
On 02/12/2018 01:02 PM, Maxim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [Sorry for a message duplication. Web mail client ruined the
> formatting of the previous e-mail =( ]
>
> There is a simple configuration of two cluster nodes (built via RHEL 6
> pcs interface) with multiple master/slave resources, disabled fencing
Hello,
[Sorry for a message duplication. Web mail client ruined the formatting
of the previous e-mail =( ]
There is a simple configuration of two cluster nodes (built via RHEL 6
pcs interface) with multiple master/slave resources, disabled fencing
and the single sync interface.
All is ok m
Hello
There is a simple configuration of two cluster nodes (built via RHEL 6 pcs
interface) with multiple master/slave resources, disabled fencing and the single
sync interface.
All is ok mainly. But there is some problem of the cluster activity performance
when the master node is powered off (h
15 matches
Mail list logo
