[Pacemaker] Question about the behavior when a pacemaker's process crashed

[Kazunori INOUE]

(13.07.15 11:00), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2013, at 6:28 PM, Kazunori INOUE <inouekazu at intellilink.co.jp> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using pacemaker-1.1.10.
>> When a pacemaker's process crashed, the node is sometimes fenced or is not sometimes fenced.
>> Is this the assumed behavior?
>
> Yes.
>
> Sometimes the dev1 respawns the processes fast enough that dev2 gets the "hey, i'm back" notification before the PE gets run and fencing can be initiated.
> In such cases, there is nothing to be gained from fencing - dev1 is reachable and responding.

OK... but I want pacemaker to certainly perform either behavior (fence is performed or fence is not performed), since operation is troublesome.
I think that it is better if user can specify behavior as an option.

Best regards.

>
>
> It makes writing CTS tests hard, but it is not incorrect.
>
>>
>> procedure:
>> $ systemctl start pacemaker
>> $ crm configure load update test.cli
>> $ pkill -9 lrmd
>>
>> attachment:
>> STONITH.tar.bz2 : it's crm_report when fenced
>> notSTONITH.tar.bz2 : it's crm_report when not fenced
>>
>> Best regards.
>> <notSTONITH.tar.bz2><STONITH.tar.bz2>_______________________________________________
>> 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org