[ClusterLabs] Using pacemaker for manual failover only?
dstathis at seas.harvard.edu
Thu May 26 14:55:49 EDT 2016
I tried the location -INFINITY trick and it seems to work quite well.
Thanks for the advice.
It seems to me that if I am not failing over automatically, then there is
no good reason to run a stonith resource. Is this correct or is it still
needed for some reason?
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/24/2016 04:13 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> > On 05/24/2016 09:50 AM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> >> Le Tue, 24 May 2016 01:53:22 -0400,
> >> Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> a écrit :
> >>> On 23/05/16 03:03 PM, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>> I am using pacemaker 1.1.14 with pcs 0.9.149. I have successfully
> >>>> configured pacemaker for highly available nfs with drbd. Pacemaker
> >>>> allows me to easily failover without interrupting nfs connections. I,
> >>>> however, am only interested in failing over manually (currently I use
> >>>> "pcs resource move <drbd_rsc> <target_node> --master"). I would like
> >>>> the cluster to do nothing when a node fails unexpectedly.
> >>>> Right now the solution I am going with is to run
> >>>> "pcs property set is-managed-default=no"
> >>>> until I need to failover, at which point I set is-managed-default=yes,
> >>>> then failover, then set it back to no.
> >>>> While this method works for me, it can be unpredictable if people run
> >>>> move commands at the wrong time.
> >>>> Is there a way to disable automatic failover permanently while still
> >>>> allowing manual failover (with "pcs resource move" or with something
> >> Try to set up your cluster without the "interval" parameter on the
> >> action? The resource will be probed during the target-action
> (start/promote I
> >> suppose), but then it should not get monitored anymore.
> > Ignoring the general cluster yes/no question a simple solution would
> > be to bind the master-role to a node-attribute that you move around
> > manually.
> This is the right track. There are a number of ways you could do it, but
> the basic idea is to use constraints to only allow the resources to run
> on one node. When you want to fail over, flip the constraints.
> I'd colocate everything with one (most basic) resource, so then all you
> need is one constraint for that resource to flip. It could be as simple
> as a -INFINITY location constraint on the node you don't want to run on.
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Users