[Pacemaker] pacemaker counts probe failure twice

[Andrew Beekhof]

> On 30 Oct 2014, at 2:51 pm, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> В Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:32:24 +1100
> Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> пишет:
> 
>> 
>>> On 29 Oct 2014, at 10:01 pm, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I observe strange behavior that I cannot understand. Pacemaker 1.1.11-3ca8c3b.
>>> 
>>> There is master/slave resource running. Maintenance-mode was set,
>>> pacemaker restarted, maintenance-mode reset. This specific RA returns
>>> Slave instead of Master for the first probe. But what happens later is
>>> rather strange.
>>> 
>>> So on startup pacemaker initiates probe:
>>> 
>>> Oct 29 11:25:59 n1 crmd[2879]:   notice: te_rsc_command: Initiating
>>> action 3: monitor rsc_SAPHana_HDB_HDB00:0_monitor_0 on n1 (local)
>>> Oct 29 11:25:59 n1 crmd[2879]:   notice: te_rsc_command: Initiating
>>> action 4: monitor rsc_SAPHanaTopology_HDB_HDB00:0_monitor_0 on n1
>>> (local)
>>> 
>>> That's fine. Agents return OK (correctly for clone
>>> rsc_SAPHanaTopology_HDB, may be incorrectly for master/slave
>>> rsc_SAPHana_HDB):
>>> 
>>> Oct 29 11:26:03 n1 crmd[2879]:   notice: process_lrm_event: LRM
>>> operation rsc_SAPHanaTopology_HDB_HDB00_monitor_0 (call=12, rc=0,
>>> cib-update=49, confirmed=true) ok
>>> Oct 29 11:26:03 n1 crmd[2879]:   notice: process_lrm_event: LRM
>>> operation rsc_SAPHana_HDB_HDB00_monitor_0 (call=7, rc=0,
>>> cib-update=50, confirmed=true) ok
>>> 
>>> But pacemaker suddenly counts each of them twice? Why?
>> 
>> From the looks of it, the crmd is getting the updates from the CIB twice.
>> It looks like this is a SUSE install right? 
>> 
>> Probably best to poke them directly about this, they will know exactly what went into their build, will be able to compare it to the current upstream and backport patches as needed.
> 
> Well, the question was more whether this is expected behavior that I do
> not understand or it is something unexpected. I take it from your
> answer that it is unexpected?

Correct.