Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Hello Everyone,
What we have is a 4 node cluster: 2 Running mysql on a active/passive,
and 2 running our application on an active/active:
MyDRBD1 and MyDRBD2: Mysql, DRBD (active/passive)
ASTDRBD1 and ASTDRBD2: In-house application, DRBD dual primary
A snippet of our config looks like this:
node mydrbd1 \
attributes standby="off"
node mydrbd2 \
attributes standby="off"
node astdrbd1 \
attributes standby="off"
node astdrbd2 \
attributes standby="off"
primitive drbd_mysql ocf:linbit:drbd \
params drbd_resource="r0.res" \
op monitor role=Master interval="10" \
op monitor role=Slave interval="30"
.....
primitive drbd_asterisk ocf:linbit:drbd \
params drbd_resource="r0.res" \
op monitor interval="20" timeout="20" role=Master \
op monitor interval="30" timeout="20" role="Slave"
ms ms_drbd_asterisk drbd_asterisk \
meta master-max="2" notify="true" \
interleave="true"
group MyServices myIP fs_mysql mysql \
meta target-role="Started"
group ASTServices astIP asteriskDLM asteriskO2CB fs_asterisk \
meta target-role="Started"
.....
I am recieving the following warning: "WARNING: Resources
drbd_asterisk,drbd_mysql violate uniqueness for parameter
"drbd_resource": "r0.res""
Now the obvious thing to do is to change the resource name at the DRBD
level however, I assumed that the parameter uniqueness was bound to
the primitive?
My second "quick" question is, I like to use group + location to
single out services on specific nodes however, when creating clones:
clone cloneDLM asteriskDLM meta globally-unique="false" interleave="true"
I am recieving "ERROR: asteriskDLM already in use at ASTServices"
error? My question is, what are the benefits of using group + location
vs. clone + location?
With the latter I assue we will have a long list of location (one for
each primitive + node)? And with the former we do not have he meta
information
(globally-unique, and interleave)?
Thanks in Advance,
Nick.