Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-17 Thread Peter Kruse
Hi, David Lang wrote: there is a second issue with MailTo part of the OCF specs are that it is considered 'safe' to call start or stop multiple times on a RA, with MailTo this will generate multiple e-mails. this isn't a fatal problem, but it is an annoyance (I've had the shutting down

Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-16 Thread matilda matilda
Peter Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16.07.2007 10:58 According to http://www.linux-ha.org/OCFResourceAgent a Resource Agent is required to support the monitor action. But in the MailTo agent I find: ocf_log warn Don't stat/monitor me! MailTo is a pseudo resource agent, so the status reported may be

Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-16 Thread Peter Kruse
Hello, thanks for your fast replies. matilda matilda wrote: Peter Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16.07.2007 10:58 1) MailTo RA does have the monitor call. So it can be called and the required API is fullfilled. 2) In the case of MailTo the output of 'monitor' is a warning to the log. You can

Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-16 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2007-07-16T11:05:07, Dominik Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all: If you do not want to have a monitor action in your custom RA, no one forces you to really implement one. The script should just not return an error when called with the monitor parameter. This is incorrect, or at

Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-16 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2007-07-16T10:58:15, Peter Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ocf_log warn Don't stat/monitor me! MailTo is a pseudo resource agent, so the status reported may be incorrect I've removed that warning, thanks for pointing it out. Why is it legal to not define a monitor action while it is

Re: Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-16 Thread matilda matilda
Lars Marowsky-Bree [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16.07.2007 11:31 Even if no monitor operation is configured, the cluster will do startup probes to find out whether the resource is running somewhere and in what state. If those calls blindly return no error (ie, 0, success), the cluster will go into

Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-16 Thread Dominik Klein
This is incorrect, or at least incomplete. Even if no monitor operation is configured, the cluster will do startup probes to find out whether the resource is running somewhere and in what state. If those calls blindly return no error (ie, 0, success), the cluster will go into multiple active

Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-16 Thread Peter Kruse
Hi Lars, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: _If_ the fs goes haywire or is forcibly unmounted somehow, _and_ you're not monitoring it, heartbeat will never detect that error, but instead restart the application on top. That will fail though (because the fs is gone), and the node be blacklisted for that

Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-16 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2007-07-16T12:00:19, Peter Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: _If_ the fs goes haywire or is forcibly unmounted somehow, _and_ you're not monitoring it, heartbeat will never detect that error, but instead restart the application on top. That will fail though (because the fs is gone), and the

Re: [Linux-HA] Confusion about MailTo RA and monitoring

2007-07-16 Thread David Lang
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, matilda matilda wrote: Peter Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16.07.2007 10:58 According to http://www.linux-ha.org/OCFResourceAgent a Resource Agent is required to support the monitor action. But in the MailTo agent I find: ocf_log warn Don't stat/monitor me! MailTo is a pseudo