On 2006-08-17T17:52:43, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the reason i've not done this in the past is because although we're
> not managing the resource, its doesn't necessarily follow that we
> don't care if its running or not (more specifically the resources that
> depend on it and *are* managed probably do care).
>
> example: apache needs the disk.
"unmanaged" might be used as a maintenance mode thingy, during which the
resource might appear to be failed to a monitor passing by. No action
should come from this, though.
_Probably_ this means that unmanaged=1 needs to propagate upwards. Hrm.
I'm not sure.
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/
