On 16/10/19 09:18 +, Yan Gao wrote:
> On 10/15/19 4:31 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 13:08 +0200, Tony den Haan wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I ran into getting "error 1" from portblock, so OCF_ERR_GENERIC,
>>> which for me doesn't guarantee the error was RC from portblock or
>>>
On 10/15/19 4:31 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 13:08 +0200, Tony den Haan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I ran into getting "error 1" from portblock, so OCF_ERR_GENERIC,
>> which for me doesn't guarantee the error was RC from portblock or
>> pacemaker itself.
>> Wouldn't it be quite useful to
On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 13:08 +0200, Tony den Haan wrote:
> Hi,
> I ran into getting "error 1" from portblock, so OCF_ERR_GENERIC,
> which for me doesn't guarantee the error was RC from portblock or
> pacemaker itself.
> Wouldn't it be quite useful to
> 1) give the agents a unique number to add to
Hi,
I ran into getting "error 1" from portblock, so OCF_ERR_GENERIC, which
for me doesn't guarantee the error was RC from portblock or pacemaker
itself.
Wouldn't it be quite useful to
1) give the agents a unique number to add to the OCF RC code, thus
helping to determine origin of error
