[Pacemaker] [PATCH]The changing of the log level of pengine process.

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:10 AM,  <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thank you for comment.
>
> It is difficult for me to illustrate by English.

np :-)

Maybe it would be easier to show the logs and/or crm_mon output with
and without the patch.

>
> This patch is a considerably special demand of our user.
>
> Even if an STONITH resource duplicated, node and STONITH done STONITH of are that the log of the node
> to do wants to output it by warning.
>
> ============
> Last updated: Thu Jul 29 09:58:36 2010
> Stack: openais
> Current DC: srv01 - partition WITHOUT quorum
> Version: 1.0.9-74392a28b7f31d7ddc86689598bd23114f58978b
> 2 Nodes configured, 2 expected votes
> 2 Resources configured.
> ============
>
> Online: [ srv01 srv02 ]
>
>  Resource Group: group-1
>     prmDummy1  (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
>  stonith0       (stonith:external/ssh): Started srv01
>
> For example, STONITH moves to srv02 when srv01 is done STONITH of in the case of resource placement
> such as the above.
>
> Our user wanted to change the log of this time.
>
> However, I understand that it is a very special demand.
>
> I wish that I get possible to appoint such a special demand with a start option of Pacemaker if
> possible.
>
> Best Regards,
> Hideo Yamauchi.
>
>
> --- Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>
>> 2010/7/29  <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp>:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > Our user showed a demand in a level of log output after handling of pengine.
>> >
>> > When STONITH is carried out, pengine wants to output log at a warning level if a repeating
>> resource is
>> > only an STONITH resource.
>> >
>> > Because plural STONITH may be started when STONITH is carried out.
>> > However, it is because the importance of the problem is different from the plural start of the
>> normal
>> > resource.
>>
>> I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of this patch...
>>
>> If the only resource on a node to be fenced is a stonith resource, and
>> that resource is also running on another node, then unset
>> "was_processing_error"... is that right?
>>
>> Why do that?
>>
>> >
>> > I wrote the patch which operated a was_processing_error flag to answer the demand of our user.
>> >
>> > This patch may be considerably special.
>> > I do not think that all users need this patch.
>> >
>> > Please talk to me an opinion for this patch.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Hideo Yamauchi.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
>> > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>> >
>> > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>> > Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
>> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>>
>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>> Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>