Hi, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 13, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I read in the v2 FAQ the following: > > > > What happens when monitor detects the resource down? > > The node will try to restart the resource, but if this fails, it > > will fail > > over to an other node. > > A feature that allows failover after N failures in a given period of > > time is > > planned. > > > > Is that feature still planned? > > thats how it works already - sort of. > there is a layer of indirection with resource-failcount-stickiness, > but basically once failcount hits a threshold - the resource moves. > > knowing what to set resource-failcount-stickiness to can be tricky. > one of the easiest, i can turn my brain off, ways is: > 1) to start the cluster and make sure everything is running > 2) figure out the current score (see conversations regarding the > getscores.sh script that has been posted here) Ah, I need to look for that.
> 3) divide said score by X and add 1 > > > Could it also be instead of failover, fence the node X when > > failcount > X? > > no, at least not yet anyway > > interesting idea though I think that would be a viable option for resources that could get damaged or produce confusion, when started multiple times in a cluster, e.g. Xen domU's, non cluster aware Filesystems, IP addresses... > > > Or is that working already, and the FAQ is not upated? > > At least when I see this: > > http://www.linux-ha.org/v2/faq/forced_failover > > It seems to work already, but only in combination with moving a > > resource to > > another location, but not to be used to fence a node after a critical > > fail-count is reached. > > I've seen the fail_count utility, and tried to find examples on the > > webpage, > > but that search was not too exhaustive. > > > > Also, can the fail-count of different resources be summed up to make a > > decision in combination with fencing? E.g. Resources A, B, C... > > The failcount of A=3, + B=4 = SUM=7 > 6, then fecnce the node where > > that > > limit is reached. > > as above. not at the moment > Thanks for the input. I'll open some enhancement requests in the bugzilla later today for the two not possible ways. kind regards Sebastian _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
