Hi, Serge. Sorry for not replying to you sooner. I have tested your patch. It is unquestionable. Thanks.
Incidentally, in the case that xen config file has space before and behind "=" (for example, "name = domain-U"), It always passes through the check processing. If the TRIM processing is added, it becomes better. By the way, I think of other some problems. (run in parallel and timeout, etc...) Therefore, please wait a little more. Regards, Yoshihiko SATO. > Did it work for you? Shall we ask Dejan to commit this patch? > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Yoshihiko SATO > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello Serge, >> >> Thank you so much for your quick action! >> I'll test the patch. >> >> >> Regards, >> Yoshihiko SATO. >> >>> Attached is a patch that checks that DomU disappears from the "xm >>> list" on Dom0 after running destroy. >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Serge Dubrouski <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hello - >>>> >>>> This makes sense and I''ll think how to implement that. Thank for the >>>> suggestion. >>>> >>>> 2009/4/13 Yoshihiko SATO <[email protected]>: >>>>> Hi Serge, >>>>> >>>>> I consider about the case that two or more plugins are set in cib.xml. >>>>> For example, xen0(STONITH plugin for DomU) and ibmrsa-telnet(the one for >>>>> Dom0) or something. >>>>> The setting's purpose is to STONITH Dom0 when xen0 failed to STONITH >>>>> DomU. >>>>> Then, I found the following problem about xen0's fence(off|reset) >>>>> action. >>>>> >>>>> xen0 doesn't check the return code of xm destroy. >>>>> Instead, it check the target DomU is dead or alive with ping command in >>>>> CheckIfDead(), right? >>>>> However, ping does not receive any reply packets at all >>>>> not only when DomU is normally STONITH'ed but when kernel panic or >>>>> kernel hang occurs on Dom0. >>>>> In the case that failure occurs on Dom0, xen0 judges "the fence action >>>>> succeeded", by mistake. >>>>> Then, STONITH plugin which is able to STONITH Dom0 (like ibmrsa-telnet >>>>> etc.) is not executed. >>>>> So, I consider that it should confirm whether xm destroy via ssh >>>>> succeeded or not. >>>>> And it is better to check whether the target is dead with ping only when >>>>> the command succeeded. >>>>> If xm destroy is failed, xen0 should return "fence action is failed", I >>>>> think. >>>>> What do you think about this? >>>>> I would like to hear any opinion. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Yoshihiko SATO >>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>> Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev >>>>> Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Serge Dubrouski. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________________ >>> 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/ >> > > > _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
