Hi, I am getting rc code -2 from the vzctl when starting the container. It seems the issue is with the vps lock. Also I am searching for an option to start the VPS like --skip-lock with vzctl. What the the return code -2 from vzctl means ? What the the best method to start the VPS with a lock file ? deleting the lock file before starting the VPS is a good option ? -- -- Regards, Unni
I know this is a long shot but I thought i'd ask. I tried to do an upgrade from ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10 and now the hardy images do not run correctly which such errors like mountall /proc/self/mountinfo " no such file or directory". I would like to start using 9.10. I've been forced to patch and compile my own vanilla 2.6.27 kernel, however this is obviouslly not a patched ubuntu kernel and I cant seem to patch the ubuntu kernel with the latest patch. Is it safe to use the vanilla kernels ? What do I do ? Is there any plans to support a 2.6.31 kernel in ubuntu 9.10 ?
Hey Unni, unni krishnan schrieb: your questions are more focused on heartbeat /pacemaker so you may want to ask your questions on those lists ... > OpenVZ for Virtualization > DRBD with ocfs2 in dual primary mode Why are you using active/active and a cluster-fs??? this makes things more complex than they have to be. > heartbeat + pacemaker for HA > > Currently I have not added the drbd in pacemaker. But added the VPS as > resources in pacemaker, so that the VPS can fail over or fail back. You definitely want to add drbd to your pacemaker setup! > > My question is, if I remove the cross over cable that connects the > drbd then the two server will run in > > Primary/Unknown state and since the heartbeat connection which is > through another cable is not broken, the VPS will run in two nodes. > > So the data written to two drdb devices in two nodes are different and > it is not possible to discard data in any node. What is the better > solution for this problem. Please give some hints, thanks(Continue reading)
Greetings, I've seen quite a bit of interest in using KVM and OpenVZ together. Proxmox VE has been doing this for some time but they use a 2.6.24-based kernel. Anyone using the latest OpenVZ RHEL5-based kernel and KVM together. The OpenVZ/Parallels developers currently haven't tried KVM with OpenVZ as Red Hat releases KVM as a separate package. TYL, -- -- Scott Dowdle 704 Church Street Belgrade, MT 59714 (406)388-0827 [home] (406)994-3931 [work]
Hi Scott, > I've seen quite a bit of interest in using KVM and OpenVZ together. > Proxmox VE has been doing this for some time but they use a 2.6.24- > based kernel. Anyone using the latest OpenVZ RHEL5-based kernel and > KVM together. We are already testing that kernel for proxmox ve - first test looks promising. Only KSM have problems. - Dietmar
Hi, AS mentioned here http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/5790 7 The dlm for managing the cluster file system like ocfs2 is available only at > 2.6.26 kernels. My question is : Is DLM to manage the cluster file system at user space is available in openvz kernel ? If that is no. Then is there any problem in using the openvz patch with latest kernel. Is there any future problems that may arise ? -- -- Regards, Unni
Unni, ----- "unni krishnan" <unnikrishnan.a@...> wrote: > Is DLM to manage the cluster file system at user space is available > in openvz kernel ? Not that I'm aware of. > If that is no. Then is there any problem in using the openvz patch > with latest kernel. Is there any future problems that may arise ? There is one devel branches > than 2.6.26 (2.6.27) that you could try. See: http://wiki.openvz.org/Download/kernel TYL, -- -- Scott Dowdle 704 Church Street Belgrade, MT 59714 (406)388-0827 [home] (406)994-3931 [work]
Greetings, Just ran across this and I thought some might find it interesting: http://berrange.com/personal/diary/2009/12/using-cgroups-with-libvirt-and-lxckvm >From what I can tell OpenVZ is still heads and shoulders more advanced than LXC but it is nice to see that Fedora (aka their sponsor Red Hat) might be showing some interested in containers... and maybe we'll see more related features in Fedora 13. TYL, -- -- Scott Dowdle 704 Church Street Belgrade, MT 59714 (406)388-0827 [home] (406)994-3931 [work]
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 04:33:02PM -0500, Scott Dowdle wrote: > From what I can tell OpenVZ is still heads and shoulders more advanced > than LXC but it is nice to see that Fedora (aka their sponsor Red Hat) > might be showing some interested in containers... and maybe we'll see > more related features in Fedora 13. A lot of this namespace code was submitted into the mainline kernel by OpenVZ developers, so in a way they helped enable this. On the other hand the troubling bit for OpenVZ users may be the apparently missing link on this end - scarce movement in OpenVZ itself to adjust to these new interfaces in new kernels, we're stuck on 2.6.27 (or even 2.6.18)... -- -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Philipp Wehrheim пишет: >> OpenVZ for Virtualization >> DRBD with ocfs2 in dual primary mode >> > > Why are you using active/active and a cluster-fs??? > this makes things more complex than they have to be. > > +1 highavailability means that second reserve node always standby. (I.e. master-slave). When failure occurs on first master node, heartbeart starts standby node as a master.
RSS Feed23 | |
|---|---|
23 | |
24 | |
22 | |
36 | |
23 | |
42 | |
29 | |
72 | |
29 | |
49 | |
41 | |
56 | |
64 | |
113 | |
31 | |
46 | |
39 | |
83 | |
55 | |
40 | |
66 | |
8 | |
33 | |
75 | |
30 | |
33 | |
17 | |
21 | |
37 | |
41 | |
11 | |
52 | |
46 | |
122 | |
76 | |
48 | |
88 | |
67 | |
61 | |
86 | |
53 | |
57 | |
22 | |
45 | |
47 | |
42 | |
50 | |
28 | |
25 | |
58 | |
53 | |
130 | |
92 | |
94 | |
35 | |
93 | |
95 | |
65 | |
70 | |
107 | |
41 | |
68 | |
81 | |
104 | |
208 | |
85 | |
80 | |
92 | |
62 | |
51 | |
54 | |
98 | |
95 | |
147 | |
56 | |
55 | |
77 | |
50 | |
47 | |
23 | |
43 | |
15 | |
39 | |
62 | |
19 | |
66 | |
36 | |
3 | |
8 | |
18 | |
1 |
