On 10/13/14, 1:58 PM, "Bob Peterson" <rpeterso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >(snip) >> >3. What kernel is this? > >Make sure both nodes are running the same kernel, at any rate. Both running 3.10.0-123.8.1 > >> It was made via: >> mkfs.gfs2 -j 2 -J 16 -r 32 -t rh7cluster:vol1 >> /dev/mapper/vg_cluster-ha_lv >> > >Hm. This must be a small SSD device or embedded or something. >That's a pretty non-standard journal size (and resource group size). >I'm not worried about the resource group size of 32. Shouldn't be an >issue. >The journal size, on the other hand, is a little concerning. > >Can you try with the standard 128MB journal size just as an experiment >to see if it mounts more consistently or if you get the same error? >Maybe GFS2's recovery code is sending an error back for some reason >due to its size... Will do. It¹s just a demo system to verify the bits and pieces before rolling out something more serious. I did the same with the first cman system I built for RHEL 6, so just used the same sizes for things. Thanks again Bob -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
