Hi, On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:26:12PM +0100, Johan Hoeke wrote: > Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:19:55AM +0100, Johan Hoeke wrote: > >> LS, > >> > >> Running a 2 node cluster, heartbeat-2.1.3-3 centos rpms, RH AS 4.6 > >> > >> While testing a "maintenance scenario" for the cluster I set all > >> resources to is_managed is false, > >> and proceeded to shut oracle by hand, oracle being one of the resources. > >> > >> Within minutes, the node was stonithed. The log shows that this was > >> right after the monitor operation for the oracle resource came back with > >> return code 7: > >> > >> Conclusion: the monitor operation was still running even though the > >> resource was unmanaged, and it forced a fencing action. > > > > Oops. So there's an on_fail=fence for this monitor operation. Is > > that necessary? > > We want the cluster to failover if oracle breaks for whatever reason. > At least I think we do ;)
But failing over is not the same as fencing. Why would you fence a cooperating node. Thanks, Dejan > We're discussing exactly how we want the > cluster to behave. This question is more about understanding why the > cluster behaved this way. > > > > >> I then made a script which in addition to changing the resources to > >> is_managed = false also set the monitor operations to disabled=true. > >> This worked, now I am able to shutdown oracle by hand without a fencing > >> action starting up. > >> > >> Questions: > >> > >> It this expected behavior? Should monitor operations keep running even > >> though the resources are set to is_managed=false? > > > > Yes. There was some discussion about it and the majority of > > votes went this way, i.e. that monitoring should continue even > > for the unmanaged resources. > > OK, thanks for the clarification Dejan! > > > >> Is explicitly setting > >> the monitor operations to disable=true the "right way" to prevent > >> unwanted fencing actions during cluster maintenance? > > > > I'd say yes. But note that I was also in favour of having > > monitoring disabled by default. > > noted ;) > > and thanks again for your help. > > regards, > > Johan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
