On 2006-01-20T10:03:53, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Woah, what are you calling crm_attribute for all the time?
> Its either an ipfail replacement or his way of getting resources to
> run on the node where they've failed the least... I forget which.
We definetely need to include both features ourselves into 2.0.4.
Despite bugfixing and some RAs, these would be about the only real new
stuff I'd like to see there... (And the good thing is that it's probably
much the same mechanism.)
If 2.0.3 is delayed more, feel free to start writing a design & coding
it up already ;-)
> >Yeah, we know, logging needs tuning. This one probbably needs to be
> >tuned down.
> Nod. Not logging read-only CIB calls wouldn't affect me too much.
Yeah, it's this kind of feedback we need to really understand what we
need to log, so it's all well.
> >A regression test which just pounds the CIB with queries from several
> >clients in parallel however seems a good idea. Andrew, if you're
> >bored, how about such a testcase? (We could add it to BSC, or at
> >least run it on demand there.)
> Except it takes 24 hours of such pounding to trigger it... not really
> feasible for CTS.
Right, which is why I suggested a stand-alone CIB pounding which we can
leave running somehwere for a couple of hours-days. I expect that if we
really pound it from say 2-8 clients at once continuously/randomly the
bug might surface faster than 24h ;-)
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
