Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

integrate pacemaker-remote #1

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Jan 13, 2021
Merged

Conversation

mpiscaer
Copy link

_pacemaker_corosync_bind_addr was only generating the ip address of the current node and so on all nodes you got the same ip address.

mpiscaer and others added 4 commits August 20, 2020 11:41
_pacemaker_corosync_bind_addr was only generating the ip address of the current node and so on all nodes you got the same ip address.
@mpiscaer mpiscaer changed the title Update corosync.conf.j2 integrate pacemaker-remote Aug 24, 2020
@noonedeadpunk noonedeadpunk merged commit 94ea02b into noonedeadpunk:master Jan 13, 2021
@noonedeadpunk
Copy link
Owner

Sorry, I totally missed this PR :(

@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
{% set _pacemaker_corosync_bind_addr = hostvars[inventory_hostname]['ansible_' + pacemaker_corosync_ring_interface | replace('-', '_')].ipv4.address %}
{% if inventory_hostname in groups[pacemaker_corosync_group] %}
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

However this change does not make much sense to me, and I guess I need to revert it. Why you should be obliged to use eth1 interface for pacemaker_corosync_group? I think that user should leverage either group_vars or another variable should be added to control interface for different groups.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants