On 06/18/2016 05:15 AM, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could somebody please elaborate a little why the pacemaker systemd
> service file contains "Restart=on-failure"? I mean that a failed node
> gets fenced anyway, so most of the time this would be a futile effort.
> On the other hand, one
On 19/06/16 01:59 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 18.06.2016 22:04, Dmitri Maziuk пишет:
>> On 2016-06-18 05:15, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
>> ...
>>> On the other hand, one could argue that restarting failed services
>>> should be the default behavior of systemd (or any init system). Still,
>>> it is
18.06.2016 22:04, Dmitri Maziuk пишет:
> On 2016-06-18 05:15, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
> ...
>> On the other hand, one could argue that restarting failed services
>> should be the default behavior of systemd (or any init system). Still,
>> it is not.
>
> As an off-topic snide comment, I never
On 06/18/2016 02:15 PM, Digimer wrote:
> When your focus is availability, restarting makes sense. What you want
> to do is alert an admin that a restart was needed, so that he or she can
> investigate the cause. Pacemaker 1.1.15 allows for this alerting now.
When your focus is availability,
On 18/06/16 03:04 PM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 2016-06-18 05:15, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
> ...
>> On the other hand, one could argue that restarting failed services
>> should be the default behavior of systemd (or any init system). Still,
>> it is not.
>
> As an off-topic snide comment, I never
On 2016-06-18 05:15, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
...
On the other hand, one could argue that restarting failed services
should be the default behavior of systemd (or any init system). Still,
it is not.
As an off-topic snide comment, I never understood the thinking behind
that: restarting without
Hi,
Could somebody please elaborate a little why the pacemaker systemd
service file contains "Restart=on-failure"? I mean that a failed node
gets fenced anyway, so most of the time this would be a futile effort.
On the other hand, one could argue that restarting failed services
should be the
