Hi Honza I would say there is still a certain ambiguity in "shutdown by cfg request”, but I would argue that by not using the term “sysadmin” it at least doesn’t suggest that the shutdown was triggered by a human. So yes, I think that this phrasing is less misleading.
Cheers, Alex > On 29.04.2024, at 09:56, Jan Friesse <jfrie...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I will reply just to "sysadmin" question: > > On 26/04/2024 14:43, Alexander Eastwood via Users wrote: >> Dear Reid, > ... > >> Why does the corosync log say ’shutdown by sysadmin’ when the shutdown was >> triggered by pacemaker? Isn’t this misleading? > > This basically means shutdown was triggered by calling corosync cfg api. I > can agree "sysadmin" is misleading. Problem is, same cfg api call is used by > corosync-cfgtool and corosync-cfgtool is used in systemd service file and > here it is really probably sysadmin who initiated the shutdown. > > Currently the function where this log message is printed has no information > about which process initiated shutdown. It knows only nodeid. > > It would be possible to log some more info (probably also with proc_name) in > the cfg API function call, but then it is probably good candidate for DEBUG > log level. > > So do you think "shutdown by cfg request" would be less misleading? > > Regards > Honza > > _______________________________________________ > Manage your subscription: > https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/ _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
