On 15/05/2013, at 6:44 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote:
> 15.05.2013 11:18, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> On 15/05/2013, at 5:31 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: >> >>> 15.05.2013 10:25, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>> >>>> On 15/05/2013, at 3:50 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 15.05.2013 08:23, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15/05/2013, at 3:11 PM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The guest located it to the shared disk. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is on the shared disk? The whole OS or app-specific data (i.e. >>>>>>>> nothing pacemaker needs directly)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shared disk has all the OS and the all data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh. I can imagine that being problematic. >>>>>> Pacemaker really isn't designed to function without disk access. >>>>>> >>>>>> You might be able to get away with it if you turn off saving PE files to >>>>>> disk though. >>>>> >>>>> I store CIB and PE files to tmpfs, and sync them to remote storage >>>>> (CIFS) with lsyncd level 1 config (I may share it on request). It copies >>>>> critical data like cib.xml, and moves everything else, symlinking it to >>>>> original place. The same technique may apply here, but with local fs >>>>> instead of cifs. >>>>> >>>>> Btw, the following patch is needed for that, otherwise pacemaker >>>>> overwrites remote files instead of creating new ones on tmpfs: >>>>> >>>>> --- a/lib/common/xml.c 2011-02-11 11:42:37.000000000 +0100 >>>>> +++ b/lib/common/xml.c 2011-02-24 15:07:48.541870829 +0100 >>>>> @@ -529,6 +529,8 @@ write_file(const char *string, const char *filename) >>>>> return -1; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> + unlink(filename); >>>> >>>> Seems like it should be safe to include for normal operation. >>> >>> Exactly. >> >> Small flaw in that logic... write_file() is not used anywhere. > > Heh, thanks for spotting this. > > I recall write_file() was used for pengine, but some other function for > CIB. You probably optimized that but forgot to remove unused function, > that's why I was sure patch is still valid. And I did tests (CIFS > storage outage simulation) only after initial patch, but not last years, > that's why I didn't notice the regression - storage uses pacemaker too ;) . > > This should go to write_xml_file() (And probably to other places just > before fopen(..., "w"), f.e. series). I've consolidated the code, however adding the unlink() would break things for anyone intentionally symlinking cib.xml from somewhere else (like a git repo). So I'm not so sure I should make the unlink() change :( _______________________________________________ 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org