On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 23:26 +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote: > On 24/07/17 17:59 +0200, Valentin Vidic wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:57:01AM -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote: > >> Are you sure you have pacemaker 1.1.17 inside the container as well? The > >> pid-1 reaping stuff was added then. > > > > Yep, the docker container from the bundle example got an older > > version installed, so mystery solved :) > > > > pacemaker-remote-1.1.15-11.el7_3.5.x86_64 > > As with docker/moby kind of bundles, pacemaker on host knows when it > sets pacemaker_remoted as the command to be run within the container > or not, it would be possible for it in such case check whether this > remote peer is recent enough to cope with zombie reaping and prevent > it from running any resources if not.
Leaving zombies behind is preferable to being unable to use containers with an older pacemaker_remoted installed. A common use case of containers is to run some legacy application that requires an old OS environment. The ideal usage there would be to compile a newer pacemaker for it, but many users won't have that option. > The catch -- pacemaker on host cannot likely evalute this "recent > enough" part of the equation properly as there was no LRMD protocol > version bump for 1.1.17. Correct? Any other hints it could use? > > _______________________________________________ > Developers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers -- Ken Gaillot <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
