[Pacemaker] Trouble getting two node cluster to failover when network lost

[Aaron Wilson]

OK, I tried the ping RA but my VIPs do not migrate when ping connection is
lost. I placed my two VIPs in a group and I believe  I must have something
wrong with the scoring or location rules.  Should I be using clone for the
ping RA?

What is a good way to check is ping is failing or succeeding and if the
scoring is happening correctly?

Below is my configuration and snippets from syslog

ode baymaster-67
node baymaster-67-failover
primitive ip1 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 \
        params ip="192.168.67.81" nic="eth0" \
        op monitor interval="2s"
primitive ip2 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 \
        params ip="192.168.200.1" nic="eth1" \
        op monitor interval="2s"
primitive ping-nodes ocf:pacemaker:ping \
        params host_list="192.168.67.80 192.168.200.100" multiplier="100"
dampen="5s" \
        op monitor interval="60" timeout="60" \
        op start interval="0" timeout="60" \
        op stop interval="0" timeout="60"
group baymaster-resources ip1 ip2
clone c_ping-nodes ping-nodes
location baymaster_ping baymaster-resources \
        rule $id="ping_rule" inf: ping lte 0
location baymaster_vip baymaster-resources \
        rule $id="ip_rule" inf: #uname eq baymaster-67
property $id="cib-bootstrap-options" \
        dc-version="1.1.6-9971ebba4494012a93c03b40a2c58ec0eb60f50c" \
        cluster-infrastructure="cman" \
        no-quorum-policy="ignore" \
        stonith-enabled="false"

Should I be conserned about this line in syslog





On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Stefan Bauer <stefan.bauer at cubewerk.de>wrote:

> So you want to setup a ping ressource in each subnet. if your active node
> can not reach the ping node in one subnet, its an indication, that the node
> have lost its connectivity in that network.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Stefan Bauer
> --
> Cubewerk GmbH
> Herzog-Otto-Straße 32
> 83308 Trostberg
> 08621 - 99 60 237
> HRB 22195 AG Traunstein
> GF Stefan Bauer
>
> > Am 19.03.2014 um 21:29 schrieb "Aaron Wilson" <awilson at nautilusgrp.com>:
> >
> > Stefan, thanks for the reply.
> >
> > Having two nics is not for redundancy in my case. Resources on the
> primary server are being accessed from both subnets at the same time. The
> secondary server is  to be a failover if the server goes down or if any of
> the Ethernet ports become disconnected for any reason.  I read through the
> documentation and I am still not sure of the relationship between the
> Corosync hostnames / interfaces and Pacemaker resources.  Could corosync be
> configured to detect failure and start failover of a node using rrp or does
> the resource need to be monitored by Pacemaker in order to get moved form
> primary to secondary server?
> >
> > There is actually a third nic on the servers which could be used only
> for cluster communication if that works better.
> >
> >
> > Thanks again for your input. I will do some more reading as well.
> >
> > - Aaron
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Aaron Wilson | IT Manager


Nautilus Group Inc.
www.nautilusgrp.com
2201 Dwight Way | Berkeley, CA 94704
M: *801.644.2533*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20140320/12abb6f5/attachment-0003.html>