Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
paddy wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:12:41PM +0200, Gernot W. Schmied wrote: >> paddy wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:28:49PM +0200, Gernot W. Schmied wrote: >>>> This is no cluster setup, I run them isolated and once a day I power up >>>> the secondary for synchronization >>> If you don't mind me asking: Why ??? >> Because I am excentric an like it that way, I am well aware of the >> disadvantages doing it that awkward way, I have my reasons and I do not >> wish to discuss it. > > No problem, I've no wish to press you on details you do not wish to share. > > FWIW, for a once a day sync at the block device level, you might wish > to consider lvm snapshots. Of course, if running drbd synchronised in > the event of some contingency is part of your game plan, then that > wouldn't interest, but that's one reason I asked. There are mostly historical reasons for this setup, thanks anyway for the LVM snapshot idea, will give it some testing, good idea though . > >> I'd rather and humbly appreciate some enlightening input on the question >> raised ;-). > > the drbd nodes communicate by way of a network connection, and it appears > that they are not connecting. The usual debugging techniques for > network connections that are not happening apply. The other correspondent > was correct to suggest a firewall problem as a likely candidate. > > can you ping ? No, because the secondary is down as described. I am just wondering why I was able to maintain an isolated primary so far (no Ip connection to secondary), an not any longer. That's the whole point. Thanks, Gernot