The servers do not run any tasks other than the tasks in the cluster service group. Nodes 3 and 4 are physical servers with a lot of horsepower and nodes 1 and 2 are virtual machines with much less resources available. I adjusted the token settings and will watch for any change. On 6/12/14, 1:08 PM, "Digimer" <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 12/06/14 12:48 PM, Schaefer, Micah wrote: >> As far as the switch goes, both are Cisco Catalyst 6509-E, no spanning >> tree changes are happening and all the ports have port-fast enabled for >> these servers. My switch logging level is very high and I have no >>messages >> in relation to the time frames or ports. >> >> TOTEM reports that ³A processor joined or left the membershipŠ², but >>that >> isn¹t enough detail. >> >> Also note that I did not have these issues until adding new servers: >>node3 >> and node4 to the cluster. Node1 and node2 do not fence each other >>(unless >> a real issue is there), and they are on different switches. > >Then I can't imagine it being network anymore. Seeing as both node 3 and >4 get fenced, it's likely not hardware either. Are the workloads on 3 >and 4 much higher (or are the computers much slower) than 1 and 2? I'm >wondering if the nodes are simply not keeping up with corosync traffic. >You might try adjusting the corosync token timeout and retransmit counts >to see if that reduces the node loses. > >-- >Digimer >Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ >What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without >access to education? > >-- >Linux-cluster mailing list >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
