Hi,

there are new drbd83-8.3.9 packages available in the testing
repository (4 and 5, i386 and x86_64), if you want to try them out.

There shouldn't be a problem to drop those in as a replacement to
older drbd83 packages.

Regards,

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On 10/26/2010 7:13 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> there are new drbd83-8.3.9 packages available in the testing
> repository (4 and 5, i386 and x86_64), if you want to try them out.

Thanks for updating to a more stable version!

> There shouldn't be a problem to drop those in as a replacement to
> older drbd83 packages.

Everything installed very nicely and I've seen no issues with it. The
stalling issue that existed in 8.3.8 has been resolved.

Thanks,

-Shad
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there are new drbd83-8.3.9 packages available in the testing
> repository (4 and 5, i386 and x86_64), if you want to try them out.
>
> There shouldn't be a problem to drop those in as a replacement to
> older drbd83 packages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ralph

I'll test an upgrade tomorrow at $work on at least one secondary node
and i'll post the results


--
--
Fabian Arrotin



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> there are new drbd83-8.3.9 packages available in the testing
>> repository (4 and 5, i386 and x86_64), if you want to try them out.
>>
>> There shouldn't be a problem to drop those in as a replacement to
>> older drbd83 packages.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ralph
>
> I'll test an upgrade tomorrow at $work on at least one secondary node
> and i'll post the results
>

I've done a quick test on a secondary node and reported the result in
the #centos-social channel directly to Ralph, but I think that it would
be a good idea to "archive" my answer on the list too.
The machine on which i tested an update wasn't up2date and so was
missing that module-init-tools-3.3-0.pre3.1.60.el5_5.1 rpm (released
three weeks ago, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593504)
As a consequence, that drbd secondary node didn't come back
automagically (known issue, see above)
I discussed with Ralph to see if that was a good idea (or a bad one) to
put an extra Requires: line in the kmod spec to fetch that fixed
module-init-tools rpm prior to the kmod update.

One can argue that sysadmins have to keep their machine up2date (which
is right)
Another one can argue that if those sysadmins didn't update their
machine prior to the drbd83 update, some 'bug reports' will appear on
bugs.centos.org to say that the latest drbd update broke their cluster .

Thoughts about this ?

--
--
Fabian Arrotin



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Fabian Arrotin
<fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net> wrote:
<snip>
> One can argue that sysadmins have to keep their machine up2date (which
> is right)
> Another one can argue that if those sysadmins didn't update their
> machine prior to the drbd83 update, some 'bug reports' will appear on
> bugs.centos.org to say that the latest drbd update broke their cluster .
>
> Thoughts about this ?
>
> --
> --
> Fabian Arrotin
>
>

I think that fetching and installing the required dependencies is the way to go.

In reality it's not always possible to have up to date systems,
especially in an enterprise setting.
And that may, very likely, have nothing to do with the admins themselves.

Kind regards,
--
Jorgen Maas
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Am 02.11.10 15:03, schrieb Jörgen Maas:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Fabian Arrotin
> <fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net> wrote:
>> Another one can argue that if those sysadmins didn't update their
>> machine prior to the drbd83 update, some 'bug reports' will appear on
>> bugs.centos.org to say that the latest drbd update broke their cluster .
>>
>> Thoughts about this ?
>
> I think that fetching and installing the required dependencies is the way to go.
>
> In reality it's not always possible to have up to date systems,
> especially in an enterprise setting.
> And that may, very likely, have nothing to do with the admins themselves.

I don't like hard "Requires:" like those, but in this case there is a
new drbd83-kmod package in testing which has that requirement.

Regards,

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Am 02.11.10 15:03, schrieb Jörgen Maas:
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Fabian Arrotin
>> <fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net> wrote:
>>> Another one can argue that if those sysadmins didn't update their
>>> machine prior to the drbd83 update, some 'bug reports' will appear on
>>> bugs.centos.org to say that the latest drbd update broke their cluster .
>>>
>>> Thoughts about this ?
>> I think that fetching and installing the required dependencies is the way to go.
>>
>> In reality it's not always possible to have up to date systems,
>> especially in an enterprise setting.
>> And that may, very likely, have nothing to do with the admins themselves.
>
> I don't like hard "Requires:" like those, but in this case there is a
> new drbd83-kmod package in testing which has that requirement.
>

The solution as pointed out by Martin in the bug report (comment #23) is
to use a Conflicts for the buggy package, not a Requires for the newer
(fixed) package.


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Am 02.11.10 20:34, schrieb Ned Slider:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> I don't like hard "Requires:" like those, but in this case there is a
>> new drbd83-kmod package in testing which has that requirement.
>
> The solution as pointed out by Martin in the bug report (comment #23) is
> to use a Conflicts for the buggy package, not a Requires for the newer
> (fixed) package.

Why doesn't anyone tell me? >

Okay, let me take another look at that again.

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Ralph Angenendt
<ralph.angenendt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 02.11.10 20:34, schrieb Ned Slider:
>> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>>> I don't like hard "Requires:" like those, but in this case there is a
>>> new drbd83-kmod package in testing which has that requirement.
>>
>> The solution as pointed out by Martin in the bug report (comment #23) is
>> to use a Conflicts for the buggy package, not a Requires for the newer
>> (fixed) package.
>
> Why doesn't anyone tell me? >

Because there was no need. All the info was in the bugzilla report
Fabian referenced. :-P

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Am 02.11.10 21:58, schrieb Akemi Yagi:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Ralph Angenendt
> <ralph.angenendt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 02.11.10 20:34, schrieb Ned Slider:
>>> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>>>> I don't like hard "Requires:" like those, but in this case there is a
>>>> new drbd83-kmod package in testing which has that requirement.
>>>
>>> The solution as pointed out by Martin in the bug report (comment #23) is
>>> to use a Conflicts for the buggy package, not a Requires for the newer
>>> (fixed) package.
>>
>> Why doesn't anyone tell me? >
>
> Because there was no need. All the info was in the bugzilla report
> Fabian referenced. :-P

Yeah, but I didn't know that when we talked on IRC =:P

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel