On 07/06/18 15:53, Prasad Nagaraj wrote: > Hi - As you can see in the corosync.conf details - i have already kept > debug: on >
But only in the (disabled) AMF subsystem, not for corosync as a whole :) logger_subsys { subsys: AMF debug: on } Chrissie > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, 8:03 pm Christine Caulfield, <ccaul...@redhat.com > <mailto:ccaul...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 07/06/18 15:24, Prasad Nagaraj wrote: > > > > No iptables or otherwise firewalls are setup on these nodes. > > > > One observation is that each node sends messages on with its own ring > > sequence number which is not converging.. I have seen that in a good > > cluster, when nodes respond with same sequence number, the > membership is > > automatically formed. But in our case, that is not the case. > > > > That's just a side-effect of the cluster not forming. It's not causing > it. Can you enable full corosync debugging (just add debug:on to the end > of the logging {} stanza) and see if that has any more useful > information (I only need the corosync bits, not the pcmk ones) > > Chrissie > > > Example: we can see that one node sends > > Jun 07 07:55:04 corosync [pcmk ] notice: pcmk_peer_update: > Transitional > > membership event on ring 71084: memb=1, new=0, lost=0 > > ..... > > Jun 07 07:55:16 corosync [pcmk ] notice: pcmk_peer_update: > Transitional > > membership event on ring 71096: memb=1, new=0, lost=0 > > Jun 07 07:55:16 corosync [pcmk ] notice: pcmk_peer_update: Stable > > membership event on ring 71096: memb=1, new=0, lost=0 > > > > other node sends messages with its own numbers > > Jun 07 07:55:12 corosync [pcmk ] notice: pcmk_peer_update: > Transitional > > membership event on ring 71088: memb=1, new=0, lost=0 > > Jun 07 07:55:12 corosync [pcmk ] notice: pcmk_peer_update: Stable > > membership event on ring 71088: memb=1, new=0, lost=0 > > ....... > > Jun 07 07:55:24 corosync [pcmk ] notice: pcmk_peer_update: > Transitional > > membership event on ring 71100: memb=1, new=0, lost=0 > > Jun 07 07:55:24 corosync [pcmk ] notice: pcmk_peer_update: Stable > > membership event on ring 71100: memb=1, new=0, lost=0 > > > > Any idea why this happens, and why the seq. numbers from different > nodes > > are not converging ? > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org > <mailto:Users@clusterlabs.org> > > https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > > Getting started: > http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org <mailto:Users@clusterlabs.org> > https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org > https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org