On 2006-01-21T18:47:48, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really.
>
> If you cast your mind back, the original purpose for managed/
> unmanaged was so that we could depend on things that were outside the
> CRM's control. So that resources could "sit on top" of an unmanaged
> resource and would be stopped/relocated if the unmanaged one is.
>
> So monitoring is actually essential.
No, it is not.
"unmanaged" means "unmanaged by us". That _includes_ not monitoring it,
because unmanaged resources may be active w/o a RA, or we don't have
sufficient information to monitor it in our CIB.
"unmanaged" means that someone else will tell us that we a) should
resume managing it, or b) that we'll learn from some outside source that
the resource has come or gone.
(This is a useful property for resources which we learn about via a
CIMON one day.)
> If people really don't want monitoring for a while, the action can
> always be deleted (though an enabled/disabled flag would be nice
> too). Just make sure the "stop_orphan_actions" option is enabled in
> the CIB.
So, if that option is set, resources which are unmanaged will stop being
monitored? OK. That answers that ;-)
Is the corollary - that we start monitoring unmanaged resources if the
flag is not set - true too? That would be wrong.
> Whether an unmanaged resource is monitored or not is has no effect on
> what the CRM does to it - since that is always nothing. So its free
> to be unavailable/broken as much as it likes.
Monitoring a resource which we don't plan to do anything about spams the
logfiles...
> As I said above, the difference is how the resources that depend on
> the unmanaged resource are treated. They are neither unmanaged nor
> in maintenance mode and there are still ordering and locational
> constraints that need to be satisfied.
Sure.
But, a resource which is monitored may appear to be _down_, as in
"stopped". So, what will you do when that monitor comes back with such a
result?
The _idea_ of maintenance mode is that we ignore the resource, pretend
it's healthy, until the admin tells us something different. Period.
Now, I'd argue the "maintenance mode" is even more like "not monitoring
it at all, but restarting it in case of node failures". That I'd
concede. But most certainly it implies "don't monitor".
> The problem is that we have been using unmanaged mode for a situation
> its not 100% suited too.
>
> What we really need is a way to shutdown a resource "until further
> notice"... it is still "managed" but the PE should arrange for it and
> everyone that requires it to be stopped (in the right order) and
> shouldn't restart them.
This is the absolutely wrong answer to maintenance mode.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
