[Pacemaker] About behavior in "Action Lost".

[renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp]

Hi Andrew,

> Pushed as:
>    http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/8433015faf18
> 
> Not sure about applying to 1.0 though, its a dramatic change in behavior.

The change of this link is not found. 
Where did you update it?

Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.

--- Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:

> Pushed as:
>    http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/8433015faf18
> 
> Not sure about applying to 1.0 though, its a dramatic change in behavior.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM,  <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Thank you for comment.
> >
> >> A long time ago in a galaxy far away, some messaging layers used to
> >> loose quite a few actions, including stops.
> >> About the same time, we decided that fencing because a stop action was
> >> lost wasn't a good idea.
> >>
> >> The rationale was that if the operation eventually completed, it would
> >> end up in the CIB anyway.
> >> And even if it didn't, the PE would continue to try the operation
> >> again until the whole node fell over at which point it would get shot
> >> anyway.
> >
> > Sorry...
> > I did not know the fact that there was such an argument in old days.
> >
> >
> >> Now, having said that, things have improved since then and perhaps,
> >> the interest of speeding up recovery in these situations, it is time
> >> to stop treating stop operations differently.
> >> Would you agree?
> >
> > That means, you change it in the case of "Action Lost" of the stop this time to carry out
> stonith?
> > If my recognition is right, I agree too.
> >
> > if(timer->action->type != action_type_rsc) {
> > send_update = FALSE;
> > } else if(safe_str_eq(task, "cancel")) {
> > /* we dont need to update the CIB with these */
> > send_update = FALSE;
> > }
> > ---> delete "else if(safe_str_eq(task, "stop")){..}" ?
> >
> > if(send_update) {
> > /* cib_action_update(timer->action, LRM_OP_PENDING, EXECRA_STATUS_UNKNOWN); */
> > cib_action_update(timer->action, LRM_OP_TIMEOUT, EXECRA_UNKNOWN_ERROR);
> > }
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hideo Yamauchi.
> >
> > --- Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:59 AM, &#65533;<renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Node was in state that the load was very high, and we confirmed monitor movement of
> Pacemeker.
> >> > Action Lost occurred in stop movement after the error of the monitor occurred.
> >> >
> >> > Sep &#65533;8 20:02:22 cgl54 crmd: [3507]: ERROR: print_elem: Aborting transition, action
> lost:
> >> [Action 9]:
> >> > In-flight (id: prmApPostgreSQLDB1_stop_0, loc: cgl49, priority: 0)
> >> > Sep &#65533;8 20:02:22 cgl54 crmd: [3507]: info: abort_transition_graph:
> action_timer_callback:486
> > -
> >> > Triggered transition abort (complete=0) : Action lost
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > For the load of the node, We think that the stop movement did not go well.
> >> > But cannot nodes execute stonith.
> >>
> >> A long time ago in a galaxy far away, some messaging layers used to
> >> loose quite a few actions, including stops.
> >> About the same time, we decided that fencing because a stop action was
> >> lost wasn't a good idea.
> >>
> >> The rationale was that if the operation eventually completed, it would
> >> end up in the CIB anyway.
> >> And even if it didn't, the PE would continue to try the operation
> >> again until the whole node fell over at which point it would get shot
> >> anyway.
> >>
> >> Now, having said that, things have improved since then and perhaps,
> >> the interest of speeding up recovery in these situations, it is time
> >> to stop treating stop operations differently.
> >> Would you agree?
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>