On 4/11/07, Lars Marowsky-Bree [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-04-10T18:29:10, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apr 10 17:30:25 ha-test-1 process[26425]: Returnig 7
Apr 10 17:30:40 ha-test-1 process[26493]: Maintainance =
Apr 10 17:30:40 ha-test-1 process[26493]: OCF_RESKEY_probe = 1
On 2007-04-12T08:58:15, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I thought that probe is maybe never unset
correct
http://www.osdl.org/developer_bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1479
lmb - not the same thing. the resource is not deleted in between the
two types of monitor calls.
this
Hi Alan,
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 00:41:13 Alan Robertson wrote:
Bernd Schubert wrote:
On Thursday 05 April 2007 20:11:51 Alan Robertson wrote:
This particular document had a couple of other errors too, which I
believe I've corrected. See what you think.
Thanks for improving the
On 4/11/07, Bernd Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 00:41:13 Alan Robertson wrote:
Bernd Schubert wrote:
On Thursday 05 April 2007 20:11:51 Alan Robertson wrote:
This particular document had a couple of other errors too, which I
believe I've corrected.
On 2007-04-10T18:29:10, Andrew Beekhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apr 10 17:30:25 ha-test-1 process[26425]: Returnig 7
Apr 10 17:30:40 ha-test-1 process[26493]: Maintainance =
Apr 10 17:30:40 ha-test-1 process[26493]: OCF_RESKEY_probe = 1
Apr 10 17:30:40 ha-test-1 process[26493]: Returnig 7
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 12:44:01 Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 4/11/07, Bernd Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sorry for bothering you again. Its not a problem for me to update the
wiki, the point is that I'm not sure if it makes sense at all to set an
id for instance_attributes. I mean it
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 10:15:03 Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
However, it still gets passed in - just as OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_interval,
to show the distinction to an instance parameter.
# on probe (== exclusive) always report process not running
ql_log warn OCF_RESKEY_interval =
On 2007-04-10T11:08:56, Bernd Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ugh. Even probe shouldn't always return not running, but the actual
state. This seems like a weird work-around for an otherwise broken
monitor action, or am I missing something ...?
Well, once OCF_RESKEY_interval was set, it
On 4/10/07, Bernd Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 14:07:54 Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2007-04-10T12:02:30, Peter Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when you return the proper status - running, failed, not running -,
heartbeat should do the right thing
Hi Bernd,
Thanks for your continuing vigilance!
Bernd Schubert wrote:
On Thursday 05 April 2007 20:11:51 Alan Robertson wrote:
This particular document had a couple of other errors too, which I
believe I've corrected. See what you think.
Thanks for improving the documentation, but I
On Wednesday 04 April 2007 23:23:52 Alan Robertson wrote:
Bernd Schubert wrote:
Hi,
after upgrading from heartbeat-2.0.5 to heartbeat-2.0.8
OCF_RESKEY_interval interval is not set anymore, which makes our
monitoring actions to always return ${OCF_NOT_RUNNING}.
As given in the
Bernd Schubert wrote:
On Wednesday 04 April 2007 23:23:52 Alan Robertson wrote:
Bernd Schubert wrote:
Hi,
after upgrading from heartbeat-2.0.5 to heartbeat-2.0.8
OCF_RESKEY_interval interval is not set anymore, which makes our
monitoring actions to always return ${OCF_NOT_RUNNING}.
As
Hi,
after upgrading from heartbeat-2.0.5 to heartbeat-2.0.8 OCF_RESKEY_interval
interval is not set anymore, which makes our monitoring actions to always
return ${OCF_NOT_RUNNING}.
As given in the example http://www.linux-ha.org/ClusterInformationBase/Actions
in section Monitoring Examples,
Bernd Schubert wrote:
Hi,
after upgrading from heartbeat-2.0.5 to heartbeat-2.0.8 OCF_RESKEY_interval
interval is not set anymore, which makes our monitoring actions to always
return ${OCF_NOT_RUNNING}.
As given in the example
http://www.linux-ha.org/ClusterInformationBase/Actions
14 matches
Mail list logo
