Hi, On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:54:14AM +0100, Florian Haas wrote: > On 2011-02-22 00:19, Frederik Schüler wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Monday 21 February 2011 21:29:19 Florian Haas wrote: > >>> as the various ocf:*:ping[d] incarnations don't meet my specific needs, > >> > >> May I ask why and how? > > > > ocf:pacemaker:ping works, but takes approx. 25-30s to react at all, and > > approx. 40s to complete the failover. But I need an immediate failover, > > exactly as it worked ages ago with heartbeat-2 and ipfail. > > Well how about pushing down your monitor interval to something like 5 > seconds, set attempts to 1, set timeout to 1, and dampen to 0? Then > basically as soon as you lose one ping, you can fail over. > > >> Well, what if the link is up but there's an upstream problem? > > > > Good point, but this requirement is customer-driven. I have the cluster to > > initiate a failover as quickly as possible within the test cases. > > This sounds like a good time to educate the customer that too short > failover times are more of a curse rather than a blessing. :)
Right. But sometimes people need to learn the hard way. > > I have a working setup with ocf:pacemaker:ping, but this was rejected as > > being > > "too slow". > > > >> I've > >> always liked how ocf:pacemaker:ping actually monitors connectivity to an > >> upstream IP, which covers both immediate link failure and upstream > >> problems. Similar to how in active/backup bonding, you can fail over > >> based on the status of an ARP request, rather than MII link status. > > > > I just checked the redhat cluster suite: the ip.sh RA there has a > > monitor_link > > option, which does exactly what my ifstatus RA does. > > Maybe this functionality could be added to the IPaddr2 script, but I guess > > that wouldn't have more chances of being added than this one, correct? > > Improving an existing resource agent pretty much always stands better > chances of being merged than adding a new one. That's my opinion, surely > others will correct me if theirs differ. I also think that this would fit better into the existing IPaddr2 RA. After all, it is about the network interface. Somebody recently posted a set of monitor improvements for IPaddr2. Lars (Ellenberg) was on that. The link check should be coordinated with that set of patches, so that we end up with a consolidated user interface. Cheers, Dejan > Cheers, > Florian > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: > http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker