[Pacemaker] RFC: What part of the XML configuration do you hate the most?

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2008-06-27T14:52:08, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> The fail-counts in lrmd will probably be available for
> inspection. And they would probably also expire after some time.
> What I suggested in the previous messages is actually missing
> the time dimension: There should be maximum failures within
> a period.
> 
> > So I think that lrmd should always report failures like now,
> > and crm/cib should hold all the failed status and make a decision.
> 
> Of course, it could be done like that as well, though that could
> make processing in crm much more complex.

The CRM already implements all of the above for failures and restarts,
and tracks failcounts. This would be a fairly minor addition, not that I
think it would be a good one - RAs shouldn't report failures if there
wasn't a failure, period.

> > Another case we've met was when we wrote a RA to check for some hardware.
> > The status from the hardware rarely failed in very specific timing,
> > and retrying the check was just fine.
> That's what I often observed with some stonith devices.

This is a bug in the monitor operation.


Regards,
    Lars

-- 
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde