<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"><html>
<head>
<meta name="Generator" content="Zarafa WebAccess v7.1.0-36420">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>RE: [DRBD-user] secondary DRBD node shows UpToDate but is not</title>
<style type="text/css">
body
{
font-family: Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif ! important;
font-size: 12px;
padding: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
margin: 0px;
border-style: none;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
p, ul, li
{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>-----Original message-----<br /><strong>From:</strong> Digimer <lists@alteeve.ca><br /><strong>Sent:</strong> Thu 22-12-2016 20:55<br /><strong>Subject:</strong> Re: [DRBD-user] secondary DRBD node shows UpToDate but is not<br /><strong>To:</strong> Bart Coninckx <info@bitsandtricks.com>; drbd-user@lists.linbit.com; <br />On 21/12/16 08:55 AM, Bart Coninckx wrote:<br />> Hi all,<br />> <br />> since a couple of years we have a 2 node DRBD cluster on CentOS 6.5 and<br />> DRBD (version: 8.4.5 (api:1/proto:86-101)) installed from source. We<br />> noticed that all DRBD resources show "UpToDate" on the secondary node,<br />> but if we restart the service, one or more resources start syncing<br />> again, indicating there seem to be differences in between the resources.<br />> This is of course not desirable. <br />> <br />> Is this a known issue with this version? If needed we will upgrade the<br />> cluster, but since a complete virtualization setup is running on top of<br />> it, this is not evident, hence the reason why I inquire first about<br />> possible known issues.<br />> <br />> Cheers, <br /><br />Might not be helpful, but have you tried running a verify?<br /><br />https://www.drbd.org/en/doc/users-guide-84/s-use-online-verify<br /><br />-- <br />Digimer<br />Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/<br />What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without<br />access to education?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Hi,</p><p> </p><p>thank you Digimer. That seems like a decent workaround, if we automate it. But it is just that of course. If disaster strikes in between verifies, I believe we still have a problem, correct?</p><p> </p><p>Cheers,</p><p> </p><p>BC</p>
</body>
</html>