Hi Hideo-san, On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:18:07AM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote: > Hi Dejan, > > Thank you for comments. > > > > I change validate-all and want to change it to always carry out > > > validate-all. > > > I abolish vgck/vgdisplay carried out in validate-all and intend to make > > > only the check of the parameter simply. > > > > > > How do you think? > > > > Isn't it that validate-all may be really necessary only in the > > start action? The repeating monitor is scheduled only after a > > successful start. > > It may be surely necessary as you say. > However, I think validate-all to unify it so that it is always carried out.
But why? > How about what the check of vgck/vgdisplay chooses it in a parameter and can > carry out? Again, why? It doesn't make any difference for a running resource? We may do this before the start operation, of course. Cheers, Dejan > > Best Regards, > Hideo Yamauchi. > > --- On Fri, 2012/4/6, Dejan Muhamedagic <de...@suse.de> wrote: > > > Hi Hideo-san, > > > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 10:50:39AM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote: > > > Hi Dejan, > > > > > > I change validate-all and want to change it to always carry out > > > validate-all. > > > I abolish vgck/vgdisplay carried out in validate-all and intend to make > > > only the check of the parameter simply. > > > > > > How do you think? > > > > Isn't it that validate-all may be really necessary only in the > > start action? The repeating monitor is scheduled only after a > > successful start. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dejan > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Hideo Yamauchi. > > > > > > --- On Fri, 2012/4/6, Dejan Muhamedagic <de...@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Hideo-san, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:32:05AM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Dejan, > > > > > > > > > > I agree to your patch. > > > > > > > > Thank you for the reply. > > > > > > > > BTW, the monitor was shamelessly stolen from Vladislav. > > > > > > > > Applied. > > > > > > > > ocft test passed (after some struggle and eventually fixing the > > > > ocft source). > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Dejan > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > Hideo Yamauchi. > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 2012/4/5, Dejan Muhamedagic <de...@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a proposed set of two patches which would eliminate use > > > > > > of LVM commands in the monitor path. We already discussed the > > > > > > issue elsewhere and I don't see any point in keeping > > > > > > vgck/vgdisplay given that they don't result in better monitoring > > > > > > under normal circumstances. And if the circumstances are such > > > > > > that the new monitoring fails, I think that there'll be many > > > > > > more problems on the node than a failed volume group. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dejan > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > > > > 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/ > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > > 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/ > > > _______________________________________________________ > 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/ _______________________________________________________ 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/
