On 06/13/2016 12:52 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote: > Sorry, I hadn't seen that you had replied (don't know why maybe I just > had derived that from the time ;-) ). > But I guess what I've written doesn't really contradict your answer ... > Although it might make look us a little uncoordinated - anyway sorry > again... > > Klaus
I thought we said essentially the same thing :-) It's always good to get multiple perspectives anyway. It's easy for one person to overlook something that's obvious to them, and even different phrasing can be more understandable for various readers. > On 06/12/2016 04:50 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: >> On 06/12/2016 07:28 AM, Ferenc Wágner wrote: >>> Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> With this release candidate, we now provide three sample alert scripts >>>> to use with the new alerts feature, installed in the >>>> /usr/share/pacemaker/alerts directory. >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is there a real reason to name these scripts *.sample? Sure, they are >>> samples, but they are also usable as-is, aren't they? >> Almost as-is -- copy them somewhere, rename them without ".sample", and >> mark them executable. >> >> After some discussion, we decided that this feature is not mature enough >> yet to provide the scripts for direct use. After we get some experience >> with how users actually use the feature and the sample scripts, we can >> gain more confidence in recommending them generally. Until then, we >> recommend that people examine the script source and edit it to suit >> their needs before using it. >> >> That said, I think the SNMP script in particular is quite useful. >> >> The log-to-file script is more a proof-of-concept that people can use as >> a template. The SMTP script may be useful, but probably paired with some >> custom software handling the recipient address, to avoid flooding a real >> person's mailbox when a cluster is active. >> >>>> The ./configure script has a new "--with-configdir" option. >>> This greatly simplifies packaging, thanks much! >>> >>> Speaking about packaging: are the alert scripts run by remote Pacemaker >>> nodes? I couldn't find described which nodes run the alert scripts. >>> From the mailing list discussions I recall they are run by each node, >>> but this would be useful to spell out in the documentation, I think. >> Good point. Alert scripts are run only on cluster nodes, but they >> include remote node events. I'll make sure the documentation mentions that. >> >>> Similarly for the alert guarrantees: I recall there's no such thing, but >>> one could also think they are parts of transactions, thus having recovery >>> behavior similar to the resource operations. Hmm... wouldn't such >>> design actually make sense? >> We didn't want to make any cluster operation depend on alert script >> success. The only thing we can guarantee is that the cluster will try to >> call the alert script for each event. But if the system is going >> haywire, for example, we may be unable to spawn a new process due to >> some resource exhaustion, and of course the script itself may have problems. >> >> Also, we wanted to minimize the script interface, and keep it >> backward-compatible with crm_mon external scripts. We didn't want to add >> an OCF-style layer of meta-data, actions and return codes, instead >> keeping it as simple as possible for anyone writing one. >> >> Since it's a brand new feature, we definitely want feedback on all >> aspects once it's in actual use. If alert script failures turns out to >> be a big issue, I could see maybe reporting them in cluster status (and >> allowing that to be cleaned up). _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org