On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 02:05:59PM +0200, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:36:05PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 05:30:35PM +0900, Satomi TANIGUCHI wrote: > >> > >>>>>> - fencing operation timeouts per stonith resource (stonithd) > >>>>> ack > >>>> http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/dev/rev/0f17d8472570 > >>>> http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/dev/rev/785fb0d9d821 > >>>> > >>>> The timeouts are taken from the "start" operation. Even though it > >>>> may not be obvious that this timeout is used for the fencing > >>>> operations as well, I think that it still makes more sense than > >>>> making an extra instance attribute. Any objections? > >>> Maybe, users are at a loss what to do when they want to set fence op's > >>> timeout, I think. > >>> Adding "stonith-timeout" in <instance_attributes> seems to be a better > >>> way... > >> > >> It would be very easy to implement that. But I'm still not sure > >> if that's really a better way. Currently, the timeout is picked > >> from the start operation and, if that's not set, from the fencing > >> request which comes either from the crmd or stonithd itself. > >> Well, if you insist, we could have the instance attribute > >> override all other timeouts. > > I still consider that to add an attribute in <instance_attributes> is > > a better one. > > Start and reset are different operations. > > Start op is to check whether stonith device's setting is enable or not, > > but reset op needs to wait for the target node to die. > > It's curious that both ops' timeout values are the same. > > The start operation implies a monitor (or status) operation. This > one is supposed to access the device and verify that it is > operational. With most devices this takes as much time as a power > management command. So, knowing the way this works, I didn't find > it curious. > > Anyway, let's do it the way you suggest, i.e. assign an > attribute which will hold explicit timeout for fencing > operations. I would name it 'fence-timeout' -- the "stonith" term > is overloaded meaning both the stonith resource and the fencing > method. > > > If the attribute is not set, to use cluster_delay is a natural way, I think. > > (Or use default-action-timeout? Which is natural?) > > We should keep the existing cluster_delay (which is halfed for > this purpose) to avoid breaking the existing setups. Though users > should be advised to update their configurations with the new > timeout setting.
Implemented. > Thanks, > > Dejan > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
