Re: fencing issue in 2 nodes cluster

[AKIN ÿffffffffffd6ZTOPUZ <akinoztopuz@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree there are alot of parameters for tuning and best results

 

every case born   new experience 

 

thanks agaın

From: Digimer <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: AKIN ÿffffffffffd6ZTOPUZ <akinoztopuz@xxxxxxxxx>; linux clustering <linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: fencing issue in 2 nodes cluster

That should like it's fine then.

As a general rule though, I recommend roughly a 2:1 test:implement
ratio. So if it takes you a week to setup your cluster, take two weeks
to think of and test every failure you can think of. It's amazing how
many corner cases you find this way (and much of the two weeks will
actually be improving your design).

digimer

On 08/03/2012 04:13 AM, AKIN ÿffffffffffd6ZTOPUZ wrote:
> dont take any error
> and yes removed the method from command  (default is onoff)
> exact  line is at below:
> <fencedevice agent="fence_ipmilan" ipaddr="192.168.11.68" lanplus="1"
> login="clsfenceadmin"  name="fence_node1" passwd="clsfenceadmin"
> power_wait="4" verbose="true"/>
> and I tested fencing using manually (making a kernel crash:Digimer
> note)  and  command with fence_node node1 .
> İt worked and services is relocated properly
> thanks
>
> *From:* Heiko Nardmann <heiko.nardmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Friday, August 3, 2012 10:40 AM
> *Subject:* Re: fencing issue in 2 nodes cluster
>
> Am 03.08.2012 09:12, schrieb AKIN ÿffffffffffd6ZTOPUZ:
>> Hi
>> thanks all repilies
>>  I added verbose parameter into fence agent line in cluster.conf
>> according to  Heiko (verbose="true",method="onoff")
>> and I read the web link sent by Digimer .I tested fencing using
>>  "echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger" on  node1.
>> after that I saw fencing occured and related services    moved to
>> other node properly.
>> in this case    can we say , fencing is ok ?    or also should I  use
>> fence_node command  on node  for being sure?
>>
>
> No errors anymore? Did you reduce the number of parameters as Digimer
> suggested? Then it would be maybe interesting for others to see your
> working fence configuration as configured inside cluster.conf.
>
> I would suggest to test a little bit too much than doing not enough
> testing ... ;-) ... debugging afterwards is more costly than doing
> testing before ...
>
> So my recommendation would be to test that manually started fencing,
> too, to see whether any messages/errors appear.
>
> After that you are probably fine ...
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>      Heiko
>
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
>
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>


--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com/

--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster