lmb at suse
Jun 30, 2011, 1:48 PM
Views: 2379
Permalink
|
On 2011-06-30T12:48:03, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejan [at] suse> wrote:
> > > > The RA can sometimes ascertain that the resource will never be able to
> > > > be started on that node unless the admin intervenes or the environment
> > > > is changed by other resources being brought online first. (Which is what
> > > > ERR_INSTALLED being returned by monitor_0 basically implies.)
> > > Which doesn't work for all resources, as we recently discussed.
> > > Some, such as oracle or db2, may even have binaries on shared
> > > storage.
> > Which is exactly the point. I'm not sure where you're contradicting me?
> ERR_INSTALLED says that the resource can never run on this node.
> In case of probes, that may not be true if for instance shared
> storage is not mounted. So, in some RAs probe must return
> NOT_RUNNING if some requirements are not fulfilled.
Which is exactly why "monitor" shouldn't return ERR_INSTALLED, if this
possibility exists. That was the whole point of this discussion?
Note that "binary not present", if one wants to be pedantic, is not
identical to "not running"; it is identical to "not start or stoppable",
in all likelihood, but ps could still be used to see if the process is
around. On the other hand, "data share not mounted" probably is a pretty
good indicator of "not running".
> ocf_rarun $@
Ah, so a template function that takes care of the code that is shared
across resource agents. Yes, that's a good idea, but a completely
different discussion than this one.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
ha-wg-technical mailing list
ha-wg-technical [at] lists
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ha-wg-technical
|
