Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "ipreallocate".
Did you mean:
preallocate
2012 May 24
0
Could not find node to take over public address
...I could not find out why the nodes are both disabled. So then I issue
# ctdb enable
on each node. After that ctdb will not be able to assign the public ip
addresses. On the first node I get repeatedly:
> 2012/05/24 14:32:09.408217 [ 6773]: Forced running of eventscripts with argument
> s ipreallocated
> 2012/05/24 14:32:09.442628 [recoverd: 6800]: Public address '10.94.43.67' is not
> assigned and we could serve this ip
> 2012/05/24 14:32:09.442643 [recoverd: 6800]: Public address '10.94.43.66' is not
> assigned and we could serve this ip
> 2012/05/24 14:32:09.4...
2013 May 30
0
[Announce] CTDB 2.2 available for download
Changes in CTDB 2.2
===================
User-visible changes
--------------------
* The "stopped" event has been removed.
The "ipreallocated" event is now run when a node is stopped. Use
this instead of "stopped".
* New --pidfile option for ctdbd, used by initscript
* The 60.nfs eventscript now uses configuration files in
/etc/ctdb/nfs-rpc-checks.d/ for timeouts and actions instead of
hardcoding them into the sc...
2013 Apr 09
0
Failed to start CTDB first time after install
...[30575]: Release freeze handler for prio 3
2013/04/09 16:10:03.622723 [recoverd:30648]: server/ctdb_recoverd.c:1815 Recovery - disabled recovery mode
2013/04/09 16:10:03.623218 [recoverd:30648]: Disabling ip check for 9 seconds
2013/04/09 16:10:03.623228 [30575]: Running eventscripts with arguments ipreallocated
2013/04/09 16:10:03.623260 [30575]: Monitoring has been disabled
2013/04/09 16:10:03.623283 [30575]: server/eventscript.c:800 Starting eventscript ipreallocated
2013/04/09 16:10:03.971720 [30575]: server/eventscript.c:486 Eventscript ipreallocated finished with state 0
2013/04/09 16:10:03.971788...
2013 Oct 30
0
[Announce] CTDB 2.5 available for download
...on fixed.
* The default recovery method for persistent databases has been
changed to use database sequence numbers instead of doing
record-by-record recovery (using record sequence numbers). This
fixes issues including registry corruption.
* Banned nodes are no longer told to run the "ipreallocated" event
during a takeover run, when in fallback mode with nodes that don't
support the IPREALLOCATED control.
Important internal changes
--------------------------
* Persistent transactions are now compatible with Samba and work
reliably.
* The recovery master role has been made m...
2025 May 29
1
ctdb tcp kill: remaining connections
...t specifies a different interface.
* Timing/routing:
Not that it should matter, but are you using the 13.per_ip_routing
event script to add source-based routing? If so, I'm wondering if
perhaps something is going wrong there during "takeip" and is being
fixed later in "ipreallocated".
Is anything strange about your routing? In fact, are the clients on
the same subnet as the server nodes? It shouldn't matter if
everything is setup sanely.
One other thing I notice in the relevant (lockd client) kernel code is
that it calls:
rpc_force_rebind(clnt);
after l...
2014 Feb 26
0
CTDB Debug Help
...overy for startup
2014/02/26 12:14:38.581971 [recoverd:11272374]: Refusing to disable
takeover runs on inactive node
2014/02/26 12:14:38.702472 [10027232]: Failed to open event script
directory '/usr/smb_cluster/etc/ctdb/events.d'
2014/02/26 12:14:38.702524 [10027232]: Failed to run "ipreallocated" event
2014/02/26 12:15:37.737758 [10027232]: server/ctdb_recover.c:562 Been in
recovery mode for too long. Dropping all IPS
Back on the first node I see the following added:
2014/02/26 12:10:33.364973 [6553670]: Freeze priority 1
2014/02/26 12:10:33.515860 [6553670]: Freeze priority 2
2...
2025 May 28
1
ctdb tcp kill: remaining connections
Martin Schwenke schrieb am 17.10.2024 13:00:
>> Thanks! I hope to being able to use a current version soon.
>
> Of course, I meant the next minor version (e.g. 4.22.x), since none of
> this is really bug fixes...
Unfortunately I am still not able to run the current version, but for this problem it should not matter because the current code is unchanged in that regard:
We are