Hi Andrew, Thank you for comment.
> A long time ago in a galaxy far away, some messaging layers used to > loose quite a few actions, including stops. > About the same time, we decided that fencing because a stop action was > lost wasn't a good idea. > > The rationale was that if the operation eventually completed, it would > end up in the CIB anyway. > And even if it didn't, the PE would continue to try the operation > again until the whole node fell over at which point it would get shot > anyway. Sorry... I did not know the fact that there was such an argument in old days. > Now, having said that, things have improved since then and perhaps, > the interest of speeding up recovery in these situations, it is time > to stop treating stop operations differently. > Would you agree? That means, you change it in the case of "Action Lost" of the stop this time to carry out stonith? If my recognition is right, I agree too. if(timer->action->type != action_type_rsc) { send_update = FALSE; } else if(safe_str_eq(task, "cancel")) { /* we dont need to update the CIB with these */ send_update = FALSE; } ---> delete "else if(safe_str_eq(task, "stop")){..}" ? if(send_update) { /* cib_action_update(timer->action, LRM_OP_PENDING, EXECRA_STATUS_UNKNOWN); */ cib_action_update(timer->action, LRM_OP_TIMEOUT, EXECRA_UNKNOWN_ERROR); } Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi. --- Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:59 AM, <renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Node was in state that the load was very high, and we confirmed monitor > > movement of Pacemeker. > > Action Lost occurred in stop movement after the error of the monitor > > occurred. > > > > Sep �8 20:02:22 cgl54 crmd: [3507]: ERROR: print_elem: Aborting > > transition, action lost: > [Action 9]: > > In-flight (id: prmApPostgreSQLDB1_stop_0, loc: cgl49, priority: 0) > > Sep �8 20:02:22 cgl54 crmd: [3507]: info: abort_transition_graph: > > action_timer_callback:486 - > > Triggered transition abort (complete=0) : Action lost > > > > > > For the load of the node, We think that the stop movement did not go well. > > But cannot nodes execute stonith. > > A long time ago in a galaxy far away, some messaging layers used to > loose quite a few actions, including stops. > About the same time, we decided that fencing because a stop action was > lost wasn't a good idea. > > The rationale was that if the operation eventually completed, it would > end up in the CIB anyway. > And even if it didn't, the PE would continue to try the operation > again until the whole node fell over at which point it would get shot > anyway. > > Now, having said that, things have improved since then and perhaps, > the interest of speeding up recovery in these situations, it is time > to stop treating stop operations differently. > Would you agree? > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: > http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker > _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker