[Pacemaker] pacemaker service start failed.

[Yuusuke Iida]

Hi, Andrew

(2012/10/30 13:51), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Yuusuke Iida
> <iidayuus at intellilink.co.jp> wrote:
>> Hi, Andrew
>>
>>
>> (2012/10/26 9:31), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When I described the IP which I used in ring0 in /etc/hosts, I confirmed
>>>>> that start of pacemaker succeeded.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> [moved first question to the end]
>>
>> I understood that name solution was necessary.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> Was there any problem with a conventional method to use uname()?
>>>
>>> The problem with uname() is that your peers don't know the value until
>>> you send it to them.
>>> Which creates a conceptual race condition - how do you send a message
>>> to (or fence) a peer who's name you don't know yet?
>>
>> sorry, I did not understand it a little.
>> What kind of situation is it?
>
> Mostly during startup.
> Since corosync only knows nodeids, that is all we know about our peers
> until they send us a message (which contains their name).  So if we
> need to send them a message before we hear from it, then we have no
> way to how to address it.  Likewise, if one suffers a failure we have
> no idea who to shoot.
I understood these problems.

>
>>>>> Will setting to convert IP of such ring0 into the name be necessary by
>>>>> all
>>>>> means in future?
>>>
>>> In a word "no":-)
>>>
>>> There are a couple of options:
>>>
>>> - you can specify the names to use in corosync.conf (nodelist)
>>>     using a nodelist doesn't prevent you from using multicast
>>>
>>> - you can setup /etc/hosts as you did above
>>>
>>> - I have just now re-instated the uname() default for corosync 2.0
>>> cluster types.  It didn't occur to me that people wouldn't set up
>>> anything:-)
>>>     The patch is:https://github.com/beekhof/pacemaker/commit/9a81945
>>> can you give it a try?
>>
>> I tried this correction.
>> The correction seems to run without a problem.
>
> I will probably amend that patch to drop everything after the first '.'
> Does that sound like a good idea to you?
Because I do not so know a lot in FQDN, there is not the good idea.

I am worried about the problem that is different from this.

When the name that I got in "uname -n" is different from the name that I 
got in name solution,
A thing treating using "uname -n" in RA might not work.

pgsql and mysql use "uname -n" as representative RA.

For example, it is the following cases.
uname: node1
DNS(or /etc/hosts): node1_eth1

How do you think about this?

Regards,
Yuusuke
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> 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
>

-- 
----------------------------------------
METRO SYSTEMS CO., LTD

Yuusuke Iida
Mail: iidayuus at intellilink.co.jp
----------------------------------------