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.