Hi All,
With current opensaf-4.7.x (4.7.0-1) and default (5.0.M0-1 )
in-service upgrade is not working
the default (5.0.M0-1 ) Node is not able to joining cluster as Standby
with following error :
=
Hi Nagu, Praveen,
I have been trying your patch, with the test case below:
Setup 2N model, PL4 host SU4 (act), PL5 host SU5(stb)
1. issue admin command shutdown SG
2. Hanging quiescing csi_set callback
3. Stop both SCs
4. Stop PL4
5. Restart both SCs
I have seen this error after SCs come back als
Hi Nagu,
good , my questions below was related to the three iterators and deleting
while iterating. /Thanks HansN
-Original Message-
From: Nagendra Kumar [mailto:nagendr...@oracle.com]
Sent: den 3 mars 2016 07:01
To: Hans Nordebäck; Praveen Malviya; Minh Chau H; Gary Lee
Cc: opensaf-de
Hi Hans,
I will send the modified patch.
Thanks
-Nagu
> -Original Message-
> From: Nagendra Kumar
> Sent: 03 March 2016 10:50
> To: Hans Nordebäck; Praveen Malviya; Minh Chau H; Gary Lee
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 1 of 1] amfd: delete su and it
Hi Hans N,
Thanks for your review. If I incorporate the comment, Is that
Ack ?
Thanks
-Nagu
> -Original Message-
> From: Hans Nordebäck [mailto:hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com]
> Sent: 29 February 2016 19:30
> To: Nagendra Kumar; Praveen Malviya; Minh Chau H; Gary Lee
> Cc: op
Hi Nagu, Praveen
From patch 09 to patch 14, they are fixes for bugs that you also need
on top of patches #4.
The problems you reported should not happen if you have them. They are
regardless whether we *reboot node if transient states* or *adjust
transient states* (delayed failover).
Patch 0
Hi Anders,
Ack with comments
Have tested with legacy test PASS.
Comments:
Instead of logging SaAisErrorT as a number (%u) it could be logged using
saf_error()
Note: Will not apply on top of the resilience patch. After discussion with
Anders the resilience patch will be pushed before this patc
#1 I have applied patches #1 to #4 only. With this patches(not having patch
#6), I thought to have passed most of the following tests, but they got
failed(Listed below).
I could not test other scenarios (including alarms and notifications), because
I haven't applied patch #6. I think there s
osaf/services/infrastructure/fm/config/fmd.conf | 2 +-
osaf/services/infrastructure/fm/fms/fm_main.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
The default activation supervision time-out was set too low, which could cause
it to expire e.g. on systems with a large number of ob
Summary: fm: Increase the default activation supervision time-out to five
minutes [#79]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 79
Peer Reviewer(s): Mathi
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): default(5.0)
Development branch: default
Impacted area Impact y/n
---
Hi Vu
Ack with comments:
I have not done a complete deep review of all the resilience code I have mostly
looked at stream close during headless which is an addition to the original
resilience patch. Also I have only been able to test the "legacy" functionality
of the log service so eventual pr
ACK
/Ingvar
-Original Message-
From: Anders Widell
Sent: den 29 februari 2016 15:10
To: Ingvar Bergström; Rafael Odzakow
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [PATCH 1 of 1] smf: Support AMF configurations containing more than
two OpenSAF 2N SUs [#79]
osaf/services/saf/smfs
For instance, application can configure one component restart can lead
to node failover, and this escalation path should work during headless
the same way as in non-headless.
But if the escalation path that needs comp/su failover, amfnd will
*disable* the faulty comp/su and recovery/repair shall
Isolation should happen immediately, but it is the recovery and repair
actions that can sometimes be postponed until the system controllers are
back.
regards,
Anders Widell
On 03/02/2016 12:18 PM, Mathivanan Naickan Palanivelu wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. My query was independent of the
Thanks for the explanation. My query was independent of the mail thread and
Was generic to understand what 'delayed failover' terminology meant during the
fault scenarios!
I probably wanted to state that a solution that does not isolates the faulty
resource once a fault is detected,
would be aga
Hi Mathi
I think Minh has previously said "delayed failover" isn't the best
description of what patch 6 is doing.
Minh has previously described it better as "adjust HA assignment";
moving transient states to states that
realign() can work with. The transient states aren't necessarily
caused
Hi All,
What is 'delayed failover'? That sounds against the principles of 'software
fault isolation'!?
Thanks,
Mathi.
- minh.c...@dektech.com.au wrote:
> Hi Praveen,
>
> Please see comments in line [Minh]
>
> Thanks,
> Minh
>
> On 02/03/16 18:12, praveen malviya wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 02
17 matches
Mail list logo
