On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:08 AM, David Vossel <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Florian Haas" <[email protected]> >> Yeah, actually using a resource type that is capable of running in >> master/slave mode would be a good start. :) Use >> ocf:pacemaker:Stateful >> instead of ocf:pacemaker:Dummy in your test setup. >> > > The example works with the Stateful resource agent, and your comment helped > me understand how this concept works better. I was not aware resource agents > knew anything about master/slave status. For some reason I had it in my head > the master/slave concept was just internal to Pacemaker and we could make > whatever we wanted out of it.
If a resource management feature had no bearing on the resources at all, being just "internal" to the resource manager, what would be the point of having the feature in the first place? Any resource that you want to manage as part of a master/slave set obviously has to support the promote and demote operations. Those that don't (such as Dummy, for example) have no way of ever getting promoted. The following items in the documentation should provide additional insight: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1/html/Pacemaker_Explained/ch10s03s09.html http://www.linux-ha.org/doc/dev-guides/_literal_promote_literal_action.html http://www.linux-ha.org/doc/dev-guides/_literal_demote_literal_action.html Cheers, Florian -- Need help with High Availability? http://www.hastexo.com/now _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: [email protected] 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
