On 11/30/05, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2005-11-22T12:32:14, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The only sane interpretation is therefore to treat the resource failed. > > Right. However, we need to recover from as many things as possible, > gracefully. > > > Also, for the record, option A is not allowed as it would > > bypass/conflict with the "multiple active" recovery policies > > configured in the CIB and carried out in the PE. > > BTW, this is not true. "A" in particular referred to the case where, > after a successful start, a "monitor" returned an unexpected "stopped" > status code. Treating this as a failed resource (and thus doing a "stop" > first) is absolutely harmless and might help catch corner cases. >
Ok - I probably misinterpreted you there. _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
