On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:04:48PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > 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>
Yes. Perhaps I could also try to be more careful in future. I made no less than two mistakes in this snippet. Whatever I've been thinking about :-| Sorry for the noise. It's fixed now and works as expected. Cheers, Dejan > > > > > >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/
