On 8/17/06, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
when you decide, make sure you file it as an enhancement for the PE rewrite :-)
and that applies to everyone really... by the time the rewrite happens
we should have a pretty good idea about what the PE should do and i'm
going to get even more fussy about new feature requests after that
point.
so get them all in ASAP or they'll probably have to wait for 3.0
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
