[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: [Question] About movement of pacemaker_remote.

Andrew Beekhof andrew at beekhof.net
Wed Aug 5 23:55:00 CEST 2015


Ok, I’ll look into it. Thanks for retesting. 

> On 5 Aug 2015, at 4:00 pm, renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
>>> Do you know if this behaviour still exists?
>>> A LOT of work went into the remote node logic in the last couple of months, 
>> its 
>>> possible this was fixed as a side-effect.
>>  
>>  
>> It is the latest and does not confirm it.
>> I confirm it.
> 
> 
> I confirmed it in latest Pacemaker.(pacemaker-eefdc909a41b571dc2e155f7b14b5ef0368f2de7)
> 
> After all the phenomenon occurs.
> 
> 
> In the first clean up, pacemaker fails in connection with pacemaker_remote.
> The second succeeds.
> 
> The problem does not seem to be settled somehow or other.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the latest and incorporated my log again.
> 
> -------
> (snip)
> static size_tcrm_remote_recv_once(crm_remote_t * remote){    int rc = 0;
>     size_t read_len = sizeof(struct crm_remote_header_v0);
>     struct crm_remote_header_v0 *header = crm_remote_header(remote);
> 
>     if(header) {
>         /* Stop at the end of the current message */
>         read_len = header->size_total;
>     }
> 
>     /* automatically grow the buffer when needed */
>     if(remote->buffer_size < read_len) {
>            remote->buffer_size = 2 * read_len;
>         crm_trace("Expanding buffer to %u bytes", remote->buffer_size);
> 
>         remote->buffer = realloc_safe(remote->buffer, remote->buffer_size + 1);        CRM_ASSERT(remote->buffer != NULL);
>     }
> 
> #ifdef HAVE_GNUTLS_GNUTLS_H
>     if (remote->tls_session) {        if (remote->buffer == NULL) {
>             crm_info("### YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[%d] readlen[%d]", remote->buffer_size, read_len);
>         }
>         rc = gnutls_record_recv(*(remote->tls_session),
>                                 remote->buffer + remote->buffer_offset,
>                                 remote->buffer_size - remote->buffer_offset);
> (snip)
> -------
> 
> When Pacemaker fails in connection first in remote, my log is printed.
> My log is not printed by the second connection.
> 
> [root at sl7-01 ~]# tail -f /var/log/messages | grep YAMA
> Aug  5 14:46:25 sl7-01 crmd[21306]: info: ### YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[1326] readlen[40]
> Aug  5 14:46:26 sl7-01 crmd[21306]: info: ### YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[1326] readlen[40]
> Aug  5 14:46:28 sl7-01 crmd[21306]: info: ### YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[1326] readlen[40]
> Aug  5 14:46:30 sl7-01 crmd[21306]: info: ### YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[1326] readlen[40]
> Aug  5 14:46:31 sl7-01 crmd[21306]: info: ### YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[1326] readlen[40]
> (snip)
> 
> Best Regards,
> Hideo Yamauchi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp" <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp>
>> To: Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed <users at clusterlabs.org>
>> Cc: 
>> Date: 2015/8/4, Tue 18:40
>> Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: [Question] About movement of pacemaker_remote.
>> 
>> Hi Andrew,
>> 
>>> Do you know if this behaviour still exists?
>>> A LOT of work went into the remote node logic in the last couple of months, 
>> its 
>>> possible this was fixed as a side-effect.
>> 
>> 
>> It is the latest and does not confirm it.
>> I confirm it.
>> 
>> Many Thanks!
>> Hideo Yamauchi.
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net>
>>> To: renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp; Cluster Labs - All topics related to 
>> open-source clustering welcomed <users at clusterlabs.org>
>>> Cc: 
>>> Date: 2015/8/4, Tue 13:16
>>> Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: [Question] About movement of 
>> pacemaker_remote.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>   On 12 May 2015, at 12:12 pm, renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>>   The problem is like a buffer becoming NULL after crm_resouce -C 
>> practice 
>>> somehow or other after having rebooted remote node.
>>>> 
>>>>   I incorporated log in a source code and confirmed it.
>>>> 
>>>>   ------------------------------------------------
>>>>   crm_remote_recv_once(crm_remote_t * remote)
>>>>   {
>>>>   (snip)
>>>>      /* automatically grow the buffer when needed */
>>>>      if(remote->buffer_size < read_len) {
>>>>             remote->buffer_size = 2 * read_len;
>>>>          crm_trace("Expanding buffer to %u bytes", 
>>> remote->buffer_size);
>>>> 
>>>>          remote->buffer = realloc_safe(remote->buffer, 
>>> remote->buffer_size + 1);
>>>>          CRM_ASSERT(remote->buffer != NULL);
>>>>      }
>>>> 
>>>>   #ifdef HAVE_GNUTLS_GNUTLS_H
>>>>      if (remote->tls_session) {
>>>>          if (remote->buffer == NULL) {
>>>>         crm_info("### YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[%d] 
>>> readlen[%d]", remote->buffer_size, read_len);
>>>>          }
>>>>          rc = gnutls_record_recv(*(remote->tls_session),
>>>>                                  remote->buffer + 
>>> remote->buffer_offset,
>>>>                                  remote->buffer_size - 
>>> remote->buffer_offset);
>>>>   (snip)
>>>>   ------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>>   May 12 10:54:01 sl7-01 crmd[30447]: info: crm_remote_recv_once: ### 
>>> YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[1326] readlen[40]
>>>>   May 12 10:54:02 sl7-01 crmd[30447]: info: crm_remote_recv_once: ### 
>>> YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[1326] readlen[40]
>>>>   May 12 10:54:04 sl7-01 crmd[30447]: info: crm_remote_recv_once: ### 
>>> YAMAUCHI buffer is NULL [buffer_zie[1326] readlen[40]
>>> 
>>> Do you know if this behaviour still exists?
>>> A LOT of work went into the remote node logic in the last couple of months, 
>> its 
>>> possible this was fixed as a side-effect.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   ------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>>   gnutls_record_recv processes an empty buffer and becomes the error.
>>>> 
>>>>   ------------------------------------------------
>>>>   (snip)
>>>>   ssize_t
>>>>   _gnutls_recv_int(gnutls_session_t session, content_type_t type,
>>>>   gnutls_handshake_description_t htype,
>>>>   gnutls_packet_t *packet,
>>>>   uint8_t * data, size_t data_size, void *seq,
>>>>   unsigned int ms)
>>>>   {
>>>>   int ret;
>>>> 
>>>>   if (packet == NULL && (type != GNUTLS_ALERT && type != 
>> 
>>> GNUTLS_HEARTBEAT)
>>>>     && (data_size == 0 || data == NULL))
>>>>   return gnutls_assert_val(GNUTLS_E_INVALID_REQUEST);
>>>> 
>>>>   (sip)
>>>>   ssize_t
>>>>   gnutls_record_recv(gnutls_session_t session, void *data, size_t 
>> data_size)
>>>>   {
>>>>   return _gnutls_recv_int(session, GNUTLS_APPLICATION_DATA, -1, NULL,
>>>>   data, data_size, NULL,
>>>>   session->internals.record_timeout_ms);
>>>>   }
>>>>   (snip)
>>>>   ------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>>   Best Regards,
>>>>   Hideo Yamauchi.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>   From: "renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp" 
>>> <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp>
>>>>>   To: "users at clusterlabs.org" 
>> <users at clusterlabs.org>
>>>>>   Cc: 
>>>>>   Date: 2015/5/11, Mon 16:45
>>>>>   Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: [Question] About 
>>> movement of pacemaker_remote.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Hi Ulrich,
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Thank you for comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>   So your host and you resource are both named 
>> "snmp1"? I 
>>> also 
>>>>>   don't 
>>>>>>   have much experience with cleaning up resources for a node 
>> that is 
>>> offline. 
>>>>>   What 
>>>>>>   change should it make (while the node is offline)?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   The name of the remote resource and the name of the remote node 
>> make 
>>> same 
>>>>>   "snmp1".
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   (snip)
>>>>>   primitive snmp1 ocf:pacemaker:remote \
>>>>>          params \
>>>>>                  server="snmp1" \
>>>>>          op start interval="0s" timeout="60s" 
>>>>>   on-fail="ignore" \
>>>>>          op monitor interval="3s" timeout="15s" 
>> 
>>> \
>>>>>          op stop interval="0s" timeout="60s" 
>>>>>   on-fail="ignore"
>>>>> 
>>>>>   primitive Host-rsc1 ocf:heartbeat:Dummy \
>>>>>          op start interval="0s" timeout="60s" 
>>>>>   on-fail="restart" \
>>>>>          op monitor interval="10s" 
>> timeout="60s" 
>>>>>   on-fail="restart" \
>>>>>          op stop interval="0s" timeout="60s" 
>>>>>   on-fail="ignore"
>>>>> 
>>>>>   primitive Remote-rsc1 ocf:heartbeat:Dummy \
>>>>>          op start interval="0s" timeout="60s" 
>>>>>   on-fail="restart" \
>>>>>          op monitor interval="10s" 
>> timeout="60s" 
>>>>>   on-fail="restart" \
>>>>>          op stop interval="0s" timeout="60s" 
>>>>>   on-fail="ignore"
>>>>> 
>>>>>   location loc1 Remote-rsc1 \
>>>>>          rule 200: #uname eq snmp1
>>>>>   location loc3 Host-rsc1 \
>>>>>          rule 200: #uname eq bl460g8n1
>>>>>   (snip)
>>>>> 
>>>>>   The pacemaker_remoted of the snmp1 node stops in SIGTERM.
>>>>>   I reboot pacemaker_remoted of the snmp1 node afterwards.
>>>>>   And I execute crm_resource command, but the snmp1 node remains 
>>> off-line.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   After having executed crm_resource command, the remote node thinks 
>> that 
>>> it is 
>>>>>   right movement to become the snmp1 online.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Best Regards,
>>>>>   Hideo Yamauchi.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>   From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de>
>>>>>>   To: users at clusterlabs.org; renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp
>>>>>>   Cc: 
>>>>>>   Date: 2015/5/11, Mon 15:39
>>>>>>   Subject: Antw: Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: [Question] About 
>>> movement of 
>>>>>   pacemaker_remote.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp> schrieb am 
>>> 11.05.2015 um 
>>>>>   06:22 
>>>>>>   in Nachricht
>>>>>>   <361916.15877.qm at web200006.mail.kks.yahoo.co.jp>:
>>>>>>>    Hi All,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    I matched the OS version of the remote node with a host 
>> once 
>>> again and 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    confirmed it in Pacemaker1.1.13-rc2.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    It was the same even if I made a host 
>> RHEL7.1.(bl460g8n1)
>>>>>>>    I made the remote host RHEL7.1.(snmp1)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    The first crm_resource -C fails.
>>>>>>>    --------------------------------
>>>>>>>    [root at bl460g8n1 ~]# crm_resource -C -r snmp1
>>>>>>>    Cleaning up snmp1 on bl460g8n1
>>>>>>>    Waiting for 1 replies from the CRMd. OK
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    [root at bl460g8n1 ~]# crm_mon -1 -Af
>>>>>>>    Last updated: Mon May 11 12:44:31 2015
>>>>>>>    Last change: Mon May 11 12:43:30 2015
>>>>>>>    Stack: corosync
>>>>>>>    Current DC: bl460g8n1 - partition WITHOUT quorum
>>>>>>>    Version: 1.1.12-7a2e3ae
>>>>>>>    2 Nodes configured
>>>>>>>    3 Resources configured
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Online: [ bl460g8n1 ]
>>>>>>>    RemoteOFFLINE: [ snmp1 ]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   So your host and you resource are both named 
>> "snmp1"? I 
>>> also 
>>>>>   don't 
>>>>>>   have much experience with cleaning up resources for a node 
>> that is 
>>> offline. 
>>>>>   What 
>>>>>>   change should it make (while the node is offline)?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Host-rsc1      (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started bl460g8n1
>>>>>>>    Remote-rsc1    (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started bl460g8n1 
>> 
>>> (failure 
>>>>>   ignored)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Node Attributes:
>>>>>>>    * Node bl460g8n1:
>>>>>>>       + ringnumber_0                      : 192.168.101.21 
>> is UP
>>>>>>>       + ringnumber_1                      : 192.168.102.21 
>> is UP
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Migration summary:
>>>>>>>    * Node bl460g8n1:
>>>>>>>      snmp1: migration-threshold=1 fail-count=1000000 
>>>>>   last-failure='Mon 
>>>>>>   May 11 
>>>>>>>    12:44:28 2015'
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Failed actions:
>>>>>>>       snmp1_start_0 on bl460g8n1 'unknown error' 
>> (1): 
>>> call=5, 
>>>>>>   status=Timed 
>>>>>>>    Out, exit-reason='none', last-rc-change='Mon 
>> May 
>>> 11 
>>>>>   12:43:31 
>>>>>>   2015', queued=0ms, 
>>>>>>>    exec=0ms
>>>>>>>    --------------------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    The second crm_resource -C succeeded and was connected 
>> to the 
>>> remote 
>>>>>   host.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Then the node was online it seems.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Regards,
>>>>>>   Ulrich
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    --------------------------------
>>>>>>>    [root at bl460g8n1 ~]# crm_mon -1 -Af
>>>>>>>    Last updated: Mon May 11 12:44:54 2015
>>>>>>>    Last change: Mon May 11 12:44:48 2015
>>>>>>>    Stack: corosync
>>>>>>>    Current DC: bl460g8n1 - partition WITHOUT quorum
>>>>>>>    Version: 1.1.12-7a2e3ae
>>>>>>>    2 Nodes configured
>>>>>>>    3 Resources configured
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Online: [ bl460g8n1 ]
>>>>>>>    RemoteOnline: [ snmp1 ]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Host-rsc1      (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started bl460g8n1
>>>>>>>    Remote-rsc1    (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started snmp1
>>>>>>>    snmp1  (ocf::pacemaker:remote):        Started bl460g8n1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Node Attributes:
>>>>>>>    * Node bl460g8n1:
>>>>>>>       + ringnumber_0                      : 192.168.101.21 
>> is UP
>>>>>>>       + ringnumber_1                      : 192.168.102.21 
>> is UP
>>>>>>>    * Node snmp1:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Migration summary:
>>>>>>>    * Node bl460g8n1:
>>>>>>>    * Node snmp1:
>>>>>>>    --------------------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    The gnutls of a host and the remote node was the next 
>>> version.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    gnutls-devel-3.3.8-12.el7.x86_64
>>>>>>>    gnutls-dane-3.3.8-12.el7.x86_64
>>>>>>>    gnutls-c++-3.3.8-12.el7.x86_64
>>>>>>>    gnutls-3.3.8-12.el7.x86_64
>>>>>>>    gnutls-utils-3.3.8-12.el7.x86_64
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Best Regards,
>>>>>>>    Hideo Yamauchi.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>    From: "renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp" 
>>>>>>   <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp>
>>>>>>>>    To: Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source 
>> 
>>> clustering 
>>>>>>   welcomed 
>>>>>>>    <users at clusterlabs.org>
>>>>>>>>    Cc: 
>>>>>>>>    Date: 2015/4/28, Tue 14:06
>>>>>>>>    Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: [Question] 
>> About 
>>> movement of 
>>>>>>>    pacemaker_remote.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    Hi David,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    Even if the result changed the remote node to 
>> RHEL7.1, it 
>>> was the 
>>>>>   same.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    I try it with a host node of pacemaker as RHEL7.1 
>> this 
>>> time.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    I noticed an interesting phenomenon.
>>>>>>>>    The remote node fails in a reconnection in the first 
>> 
>>> crm_resource.
>>>>>>>>    However, the remote node succeeds in a reconnection 
>> in 
>>> the second 
>>>>>>>    crm_resource.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    I think that I have some problem with the point 
>> where I 
>>> cut the 
>>>>>>   connection 
>>>>>>>    with 
>>>>>>>>    the remote node first.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>    Hideo Yamauchi.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>    From: "renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp" 
>>>>>>>>    <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp>
>>>>>>>>>    To: Cluster Labs - All topics related to 
>> open-source 
>>>>>   clustering 
>>>>>>   welcomed 
>>>>>>>>    <users at clusterlabs.org>
>>>>>>>>>    Cc: 
>>>>>>>>>    Date: 2015/4/28, Tue 11:52
>>>>>>>>>    Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: [Question] 
>> About 
>>> 
>>>>>   movement of 
>>>>>>>>    pacemaker_remote.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>    Thank you for comments.
>>>>>>>>>>    At first glance this looks gnutls related.  
>>> GNUTLS is 
>>>>>>   returning -50 
>>>>>>>>    during 
>>>>>>>>>    receive
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>    on the client side (pacemaker's side). 
>> -50 
>>> maps to 
>>>>>>   'invalid 
>>>>>>>>>    request'. >debug: crm_remote_recv_once:  
>>   
>>> TLS 
>>>>>   receive 
>>>>>>   failed: The 
>>>>>>>>>    request is invalid. >We treat this error as 
>> fatal 
>>> and 
>>>>>   destroy 
>>>>>>   the 
>>>>>>>>    connection. 
>>>>>>>>>    I've never encountered
>>>>>>>>>>    this error and I don't know what causes 
>> it. 
>>> It's 
>>>>>>   possible 
>>>>>>>>>    there's a bug in
>>>>>>>>>>    our gnutls usage... it's also possible 
>>> there's a 
>>>>>   bug 
>>>>>>   in the 
>>>>>>>>    version 
>>>>>>>>>    of gnutls
>>>>>>>>>>    that is in use as well. 
>>>>>>>>>    We built the remote node in RHEL6.5.
>>>>>>>>>    Because it may be a problem of gnutls, I confirm 
>> it 
>>> in 
>>>>>   RHEL7.1.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>    Hideo Yamauchi.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>    Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org 
>>>>>>>>>   http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org 
>>>>>>>>>    Getting started: 
>>>>>>   http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf 
>>>>>>>>>    Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>    Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org 
>>>>>>>>   http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org 
>>>>>>>>    Getting started: 
>>>>>>   http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf 
>>>>>>>>    Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>    Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org 
>>>>>>>   http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org 
>>>>>>>    Getting started: 
>>>>>   http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf 
>>>>>>>    Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>   Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
>>>>>   http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>>>>>   Getting started: 
>>> http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>>>>>   Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>   Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
>>>>   http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>> 
>>>>   Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>>>>   Getting started: 
>> http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>>>>   Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
>> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> 
>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org




More information about the Users mailing list