[Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2012-12-05T15:52:43, David Vossel <dvossel at redhat.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I suppose you are right.  I wouldn't have thought of these two options as being related, but we need that inverse constraint to force the restart of A.  Utilizing the inverse order constraint internally makes the implementation of this option much cleaner than it would be otherwise.

Nice, thanks.

> I have no idea why someone would want to do this... but what would happen with the following.
> 
> start A then promote B restart-origin=true
> 
> would A get restarted when B is demoted... or when B fails/stops?

The latter. (Or at least that's what I'd expect.)

But, like you say, "I have no idea why someone would want to do this".
At least in this use case, I have real trouble seeing a m/s resource as
the child resource.

I can see that coming up later (if you really go ahead with container
resources that are also managed). Maybe we should postpone the
discussion and just disallow that for now? ;-)

> I see.  Mapping the failcount of one resource to another resource seems like it would be difficult for us to represent in the configuration without using some sort of container group like object where the parent resource inherited failures from the children.

Right. So let's skip that. It was an idea, but like Yan Gao wrote, it's
adequately handled by the migration-threshold of the "child" resource
already, if an admin really wants that behaviour.


Regards,
    Lars

-- 
Architect Storage/HA
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