[Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring

[Gao,Yan]

On 12/07/12 07:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> 
> On 06/12/2012, at 10:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But any failures of the nagios agents would count against the VM's
>>> migration-threshold.
>>> So if moving were the right thing to do, it would have done it already.
>>
>> OK. I think this was due to me still being stuck on the workings of an
>> order constraint, but of course if the failures are instead attributed
>> to the container, this would happen automatically already. True.
>>
>> (Incidentally, I like "attribute", "ascribe" better than "delegate"
>> because to me, they better fit what's going on, if we sticked with
>> "delegate-failures". Just saying. ;-)
> 
> My use of "delegate" comes from my time with ObjectiveC where its common practice to use them for "I'm not going to handle X but here is something that does" style functionality.
> Which fits nicely with what we're doing here.
> 
> container="vm"  also works though.
> 
>>
>>>> We already have on-fail settings. How would these play together?
>>> Good question. My initial thought was that it would be up to on-fail
>>> settings in the VM.
>>
>> I'd prefer to keep that separate (as proposed below). Because if an
>> action of the *VM* really fails, I may want an admin to look into it
>> (why could the bloody hypervisor not start/stop it?), which is different
>> from restarting the VM if one of the resources within it needs that.
>>
>>>> Would it even make sense to have on-fail="restart-container"? (Or a
>>>> nicer wording.)
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. That might work. We allow a "container" to be specified as a meta
>>>> attribute.
>>>>
>>>> If set, on-fail would default to restart container for most actions. But
>>>> admins could actually modify it - say, they might want to set
>>>> monitor on-fail="ignore" to just get notified. And when we move forward
>>>> to whiteboxes, we could have start/monitor/promote/demote
>>>> on-fail="restart" (like now) and stop on-fail="restart-container".
>>>>
>>>> That appears reasonably neat?
>>> It does actually.
>>> I wasn't originally thinking it was necessary but it makes sense now
>>> that you point it out.
>>
>> Yes, I think I like this too now.
>>
>> Uhm. Would "container" imply ordering + colocation, or would we still
>> need them grouped (resource_set'ed, whatever)?
> 
> Ordering: absolutely
Would any user not like the implied order? Instead want an asymmetrical
or some curious one?  Although it seems just putting a  mandatory
"container:start -> resource:start" internally should applies for most
cases, and it would simplify the configuration of the "white" container.

Regards,
  Gao,Yan


> Colocation is less clear, I think the default is no but David has suggested an additional meta attribute to turn it on.
> 
> 

-- 
Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com>
Software Engineer
China Server Team, SUSE.