On 2013-12-03T19:47:41, "Brian J. Murrell" <[email protected]> wrote:
> So given all of the above, and given the log I supplied showing that the
> fencing was just not being attempted anywhere other than the node to be
> fenced (which was down during that log) any clues as to where to look
> for why?
As far as I saw in your logs, you got a timeout (when host2 tried to
fence host1). That doesn't seem to be related to this change.
> It explains the differences, but unfortunately I'm still not sure why it
> wouldn't get run somewhere else, eventually, rather than continually
> being attempted on the node to be killed (which as I mentioned, was shut
> down at the time the log was made).
I think there was a fix related to this in post-1.1.10 git. Perhaps you
can try that?
Regards,
Lars
(For the record, this change in semantics and behaviour has caused quite
some support questions here too. I didn't really like it either, but
apparently, I'm just a whiner ;-)
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Pacemaker mailing list: [email protected]
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
