Hi!
IMHO "dampening" was a very bad term, and it had confused me right from the
start.
Maybe "change_ignore_time" would have been better.
But actually a true moving average (over a fixed window) would be much
preferrable.
Maybe exponential averaging, too.
And the description in pingd is very poor, also:
dampen (integer, [1s]): Dampening interval
The time to wait (dampening) further changes occur
Regards,
Ulrich
>>> martin doc <db1...@hotmail.com> schrieb am 13.10.2021 um 17:01 in
Nachricht
<ps2p216mb0546168e8f60ee9d89131efcc2...@ps2p216mb0546.korp216.prod.outlook.com>:
> In the ping resource script, there's support for "dampen" in the use of
> attrd_updater.
>
> My expectation is that it will cause "ping", "no‑ping", "ping" to result in
> the service being continually presented as up rather than to flap about.
>
> In testing I can't demonstrate this, even using attrd_updater directly.
>
> To test out how attrd_updater works, I wrote a small script to do this:
>
> attrd_updater ‑n my_ping ‑D
> attrd_updater ‑n my_ping ‑p ‑B 1000 ‑d 3s
> sleep 1
> for i in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do
> attrd_updater ‑n my_ping ‑Q
> sleep 1
> attrd_updater ‑n my_ping ‑p ‑U 0 ‑d 3s
> done
>
> The output always has the first line as 1000 and every other line with a
> valud of "0" ‑ as if there was no dampening actually happening.
>
> Even if I modify the above to do ‑U 1000, ‑U 0, ‑U 1000, doing ‑Q at any
point
> always shows the last value supplied, with no evidence of any smoothng as a
> result of dampening.
>
> Is the problem here that the ‑Q doesn't retrieve the value for my_ping using
> the same method as is used for resource scripts?
>
> Am I totally misunderstanding how dampening works?
>
> Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Manage your subscription:
https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
