On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Christoph Bartoschek <bartosc...@or.uni-bonn.de> wrote: > Am 01.04.2011 16:38, schrieb Lars Ellenberg: >> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:35:19AM +0200, Christoph Bartoschek wrote: >>> Am 01.04.2011 11:27, schrieb Florian Haas: >>>> On 2011-04-01 10:49, Christoph Bartoschek wrote: >>>>> Am 01.04.2011 10:27, schrieb Andrew Beekhof: >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Lars Ellenberg >>>>>> <lars.ellenb...@linbit.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 06:18:07PM +0100, Christoph Bartoschek wrote: >>>>>>>> I am missing the state: running degraded or suboptimal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yep, "degraded" is not a state available for pacemaker. >>>>>>> Pacemaker cannot do much about "suboptimal". >>>>>> >>>>>> I wonder what it would take to change that. I suspect either a >>>>>> crystal ball or way too much knowledge of drbd internals. >>>>> >>>>> The RA would be responsible to check this. For drbd any diskstate >>>>> different from UpToDate/UpToDate is suboptimal. >>>> >>>> Have you actually looked at the resource agent? It does already evaluate >>>> the disk state and adjusts the master preference accordingly. What else >>>> is there to do? >>> >>> Maybe I misunderstood Andrew's comment. I read it this way: If we >>> introduce a new state "suboptimal", would it be hard to detect it? >>> >>> I just wanted to express that detecting suboptimality seems not to be >>> that hard. >> >> But that state is useless for pacemaker, >> since it cannot do anything about it. >> >> I thought I made that clear. >> > > You made clear that pacemaker cannot do anything about it. However > crm_mon could report it. One may think that is can be neglected. But the > current output of crm_mon is unexpected for me.
Maybe we need to add OCF_RUNNING_BUT_DEGRADED to the OCF spec (and the PE). _______________________________________________ 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
