On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:43:50AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >>> Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenb...@linbit.com> schrieb am 26.03.2011 um 00:10 > >>> in > Nachricht <20110325231023.GK24099@barkeeper1-xen.linbit>: > > [...] > > Pacemaker is not a substitute for proper monitoring (nagios, whatever). > [...]
... > Back to the problem: If you write a program that continually monitors > a resource, it's easier to detect (and possibly log) the state > changes. Whether to actually care about such changes is a matter of > taste. > > For pacemaker I can imagine some kind of "proxy" to be used as a > monitor that is actually querying a monitor job that is continuously > running. In fact you can even do it the other way around, and have a separate monitoring system monitor your resources, then tell pacemaker about failures. But this does not help at all for the "problem" that pacemaker does not (and does not need to) differentiate between resources working "optimal", and resources working "sub-optimal", which was the complaint raised by the OP. -- : Lars Ellenberg : LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability : DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com _______________________________________________ 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
