Good morning,
Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>On 2006-01-20T12:37:10, Peter Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>OK, this we'll eventually provide again. (ipfail)
>
>
except that ipfail relies on an external address, but
I don't understand why the failure of an external address
should cause a fai
On 1/21/06, Peter Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
> >On 2006-01-20T12:37:10, Peter Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >OK, this we'll eventually provide again. (ipfail)
> >
> >
> except that ipfail relies on an external address, but
> I don't
On 2006-01-21T11:05:58, Peter Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> except that ipfail relies on an external address, but
> I don't understand why the failure of an external address
> should cause a failover. Even if you use multiple addresses
> to ping.
The idea is that you don't only rely on the
On 2006-01-21T11:38:18, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing to keep in mind is that if we stop monitoring a resource
> when its not managed then the resources that sit on top of it may be
> adversely affected since they now don't know that its prerequisite is
> starting/stopping.
On Jan 21, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2006-01-21T11:38:18, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that if we stop monitoring a resource
when its not managed then the resources that sit on top of it may be
adversely affected since they now do
