This is essentially what I want and I am surprised this isn't already the cause.
Regards, James Smith -----Original Message----- From: linux-ha-boun...@lists.linux-ha.org [mailto:linux-ha-boun...@lists.linux-ha.org] On Behalf Of Eric Warnke Sent: 11 July 2011 13:51 To: Florian Haas; General Linux-HA mailing list Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] Antw: Re: Forkbomb not initiating failover Failing to spawn a check should be the same as a check failing. -Eric On 7/11/11 3:38 AM, "Florian Haas" <florian.h...@linbit.com> wrote: >On 2011-07-08 15:23, Warnke, Eric E wrote: >> >> If the fork bomb is preventing the system from spawning a health >>check, it would seem like the most intelligent course of action would >>be to presume that it failed and act accordingly. > >Here we go again. Since the original poster did not address the >following question of mine, maybe you are inclined to: > >> Now please define how exactly Pacemaker would be handling this >> "accordingly." > >Florian > _______________________________________________ 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
