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 on
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 p
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),
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
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 acti
>>> 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
>
On 2007-07-16T11:27:05, Peter Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was indeed exactly the answers I was anticipating.
> So, if I'm not forced to specify a monitor action in
> my cib, then I might also not define a monitor action
> for my filesystem resource. Because once it's mounted,
> it's m
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
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
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 mo
>>> 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 r
ocf_log warn "Don't stat/monitor me! MailTo is a pseudo resource agent,
so the status reported may be incorrect"
That indicates in my cib I should not define a monitor action
for the MailTo agent. So my first question is:
Why is it legal to not define a monitor action while it is
required for an
12 matches
Mail list logo
