On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:53:49 -0500, Lon Hohberger wrote: > As it happens, the 'fs' file system type looks for child 'fs' resources: > > <child type="fs" start="1" stop="3"/> > > ... but it does not have an entry for 'lvm', which would be required to > make it work in the order you specified.
With this argument I understand expected behaviour now, even if not so intuitive imho Probably it's only me, but I did read the page referred in [1] and I didn't deduce what you write above... I intended child as a child from an xml tag inclusion point of view, not in the sense of pre-defined hierarchy between type-specified resources... In fact there are terms such as "type-specified children" and "untyped children".... In my case lvm is a type-specified child as I understood, so that I thought it should have started after the same level fs resource... not before it Resuming, you say As it happens, the 'fs' file system type looks for child 'fs' resources I thought As it happens, the 'fs' file system type looks for child resources and starts them based on defined child ordering (so lvm:TEST_TEMP before fs:TEST_TEMP) Thanks for explanation Now, if passing from a running <service domain="MAIN" autostart="1" name="TESTSRV"> <ip ref="10.4.5.157"/> <lvm ref="TEST_APPL"/> <fs ref="TEST_APPL"/> <lvm ref="TEST_DATA"/> <fs ref="TEST_DATA"> <lvm ref="TEST_TEMP"/> <fs ref="TEST_TEMP"/> </fs> <script ref="clusterssh"/> </service> To your suggested <service domain="MAIN" autostart="1" name="TESTSRV"> <ip ref="10.4.5.157"/> <lvm ref="TEST_APPL"/> <fs ref="TEST_APPL"/> <lvm ref="TEST_DATA"/> <lvm ref="TEST_TEMP"/> <fs ref="TEST_DATA"> <fs ref="TEST_TEMP"/> </fs> <script ref="clusterssh"/> </service> will or will not disrupt service (such as umount/mount of the FS_TEMP filesystem)? Gianluca **
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster