On 8/30/06, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:17:54AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On 8/28/06, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hello again,
> >
> >This kind of thing makes crm_verify cry faul:
>
> in what way?
sapcl01:~ # crm_verify -L -V
element operations: validity error : Element operations content does not follow
the DTD, expecting (op)*, got (op instance_attributes )
crm_verify[3437]: 2006/08/30_11:40:17 ERROR: validate_with_dtd:xml.c CIB does
not validate against /usr/lib/heartbeat/crm.dtd
crm_verify[3437]: 2006/08/30_11:40:17 ERROR: main:crm_verify.c CIB did not pass
DTD validation
Errors found during check: config not valid
At any rate, the setting never gets to the RA.
perhaps try what crm_verify is suggesting:
<op id="apache_a1_mon" interval="120s" name="monitor"
timeout="60s">
<instance_attributes id="apache_a1_mon_attr">
<attributes>
<nvpair id="apache_a1_mon_attr_0" name="OCF_CHECK_LEVEL"
value="20"/>
</attributes>
</instance_attributes>
</op>
Cheers,
Dejan
>
> >
> > <primitive class="ocf" id="apache_a1" provider="heartbeat"
> > type="apache">
> > <operations>
> > <op id="apache_a1_mon" interval="120s" name="monitor"
> > timeout="60s"/>
> > <instance_attributes id="apache_a1_mon_attr">
> > <attributes>
> > <nvpair id="apache_a1_mon_attr_0" name="OCF_CHECK_LEVEL"
> > value="20"/>
> > </attributes>
> > </instance_attributes>
> > </operations>
> > ....
> > </primitive>
> >
> >Is this the way it's supposed to work but hasn't yet been
> >implemented?
> >
> >Or how else should the OCF_CHECK_LEVEL be set?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Dejan
> >
> >On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:09:54PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >> On 8/16/06, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On 2006-08-16T18:44:20, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since I need different levels of monitoring rather urgently, I
> >> >> thought that it would be preferable to use the "depth" property
> >> >> and then code the resource agent correspondingly.
> >> >>
> >> >> But, it seems like it hasn't been implemented yet. Right?
> >> >
> >> >I think it has been?
> >>
> >> IPaddr in CVS (not 2.0.7) has a trivial example
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________________
> >> >Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
> >> >http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> >> >Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________________
> >> Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
> >> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> >> Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> >_______________________________________________________
> >Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
> >http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> >Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> >
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
