[Pacemaker] Should monitor operations be stopped after a resource is unmanaged?

[Serge Dubrouski]

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Ron Kerry <rkerry at sgi.com> wrote:
> On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Pavel Levshin wrote:
>>
>> 01.04.2011 18:36, Ron Kerry:
>>  > Folks -
>>  >
>>  > Consider a running cluster with all resources managed. We want to stop
>>  > and quickly restart a particular resource without impacting other
>>  > resources. The software stack running on the system can deal with this
>>  > sort of temporary outage. We perform the following actions:
>>  > * unmanage the resource
>>  > * stop the resource
>>  > * start the resource
>>  > * manage the resource
>>  >
>>  > The above procedure is sometimes successful. However, we will also
>>  > sometimes get a resource monitor failure after stopping the resource.
>>  > It is clear that the monitor operation was not stopped (at least not
>>  > immediately) by unmanaging the resource.
>>
>> Unmanaged resource cannot be started and stopped, but can still be
>> monitored.
>
> So unmanaged really means the resource is still being managed to some
> degree?

It means that Pacemaker still wants to know its state. What kind of
problem does it create?

>
> This does not seem desirable behavior. An unmanaged resource should be
> exactly that ... completely unmanaged ==> It cannot be stopped, started OR
> monitored.
>
>
> --
>
> Ron Kerry         rkerry at sgi.com
> Global Product Support - SGI Federal
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Serge Dubrouski.