Hi, On Monday 21 February 2011 21:29:19 Florian Haas wrote: > > as the various ocf:*:ping[d] incarnations don't meet my specific needs, > > May I ask why and how?
ocf:pacemaker:ping works, but takes approx. 25-30s to react at all, and approx. 40s to complete the failover. But I need an immediate failover, exactly as it worked ages ago with heartbeat-2 and ipfail. > Well, what if the link is up but there's an upstream problem? Good point, but this requirement is customer-driven. I have the cluster to initiate a failover as quickly as possible within the test cases. I have a working setup with ocf:pacemaker:ping, but this was rejected as being "too slow". > I've > always liked how ocf:pacemaker:ping actually monitors connectivity to an > upstream IP, which covers both immediate link failure and upstream > problems. Similar to how in active/backup bonding, you can fail over > based on the status of an ARP request, rather than MII link status. I just checked the redhat cluster suite: the ip.sh RA there has a monitor_link option, which does exactly what my ifstatus RA does. Maybe this functionality could be added to the IPaddr2 script, but I guess that wouldn't have more chances of being added than this one, correct? Regards Frederik Schüler
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ 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
