Hi,
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:08:51PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2010-06-01T00:37:24, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>
> > Once we notice, what are we supposed to do?
> > Not do any action ourselve,
> > but tell pacemaker the resource has failed,
> > because that is where $policy lives?
>
>
On 2010-06-02T15:39:26, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> Most auto-backgrounding thingies also have a "foreground" mode.
No. SAP etc don't.
> BTW, the RA cannot register the pid of the background process either,
> as it only knows the pid of the process before it backgrounded itself.
It can deduce them
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 03:19:08PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2010-06-02T14:51:25, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>
> > I'd not put it into the RA.
> > I'd write a wrapper around whatever process is supposed to run.
> > maybe a shell script, or a shell function.
> >
> > somthing like that:
> >
On 2010-06-02T14:51:25, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> I'd not put it into the RA.
> I'd write a wrapper around whatever process is supposed to run.
> maybe a shell script, or a shell function.
>
> somthing like that:
>
> call_crm_resource-F_on_process_exit.sh
> #!/bin/sh
> # takes OCF_RESOURCE_INSTAN
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:08:51PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2010-06-01T00:37:24, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>
> > Once we notice, what are we supposed to do?
> > Not do any action ourselve,
> > but tell pacemaker the resource has failed,
> > because that is where $policy lives?
>
> Yes,
On 2010-06-01T00:37:24, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> Once we notice, what are we supposed to do?
> Not do any action ourselve,
> but tell pacemaker the resource has failed,
> because that is where $policy lives?
Yes, that's it, I think.
Sorry for the outburst, I'm really overly ripe for a vacation.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:48:02PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
...
> You're embedding policy into code here. Who said anything about the
> proper response being the daemon being restarted being the right
> response? Maybe the whole point is to initiate full PE-level recovery?
>
> > Of course
On 2010-05-31T18:16:30, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> There are several flavors of overhead.
> One underestimated is programming and code maintenance overhead ;-)
>
> Why would we "register pid with lrm" and duplicate code from heartbeat
> proper to lrmd and whatnot, or even rewrite the respawn from s
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:47:43PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2010-05-31T11:45:37, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>
> > Use the "anything" resource agent, and define a monitor action script
> > of your choice? or put a loop in your script, and restart whatever is
> > necessary from there, then
On 2010-05-31T11:45:37, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> Use the "anything" resource agent, and define a monitor action script
> of your choice? or put a loop in your script, and restart whatever is
> necessary from there, then let lrm monitor your script, and restart
> that script if necessary?
That is
On 2010-05-28T16:09:03, Bob Schatz wrote:
> I have started reading the lrmd source.
>
> One thing I am worried about is that if I give a PID to lrmd, how will lrmd
> monitor it?
>
> My RA is a shell script that forks off a daemon. If I give this daemon PID
> to lrmd does lrmd start a thread
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 04:09:03PM -0700, Bob Schatz wrote:
> Thanks Lars and Dejan for your feedback.
>
> I have started reading the lrmd source.
Good old inittab, anyone?
> One thing I am worried about is that if I give a PID to lrmd, how will lrmd
> monitor it?
> My RA is a shell script that
?
I don't think that lrmd would get a SIGCHLD in my case.
Thanks,
Bob
- Original Message
From: Lars Marowsky-Bree
To: High-Availability Linux Development List
Sent: Fri, May 28, 2010 8:49:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Linux-ha-dev] Monitoring Process Death
On 2010-05-21T12:12:12, Bob S
On 2010-05-21T12:12:12, Bob Schatz wrote:
> I think the basic requirements are:
>
> 1.When a process starts it registers itself with a kernel component. This
> registration also gets passed an action.
The easiest way would be for the RA to register pids to be monitored to
lrmd, and have lrmd
Hi,
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:12:12PM -0700, Bob Schatz wrote:
> I have an agent which monitors a process and restarts it.
There's also a RA called "anything" which does exactly this.
> It works fine.
>
> The one thing I would like to improve is how quickly it notices
> that a process has died
I have an agent which monitors a process and restarts it.
It works fine.
The one thing I would like to improve is how quickly it notices that a process
has died and fails over or restarts it.
I know that I can increase the monitoring level to do this. However, it seems
like a lot of wasted cy
16 matches
Mail list logo
