On 2006-09-06T11:12:13, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > # 0 - service up and running
> > # 1 - service dead, but /var/run/ pid file exists
> > # 2 - service dead, but /var/lock/ lock file exists
> > # 3 - service not running (unused)
> > # 4 - service status unknown :-(
> >
> >
> > 1 & 2 thus mean "something left around", which ought to imply we should
> > clean it up as failed; clearly, 1 & 2 are not "cleanly stopped".
>
> It is not running -that's clear. I tend to think that service not
> running is the same as dead.
No; 1 & 2 imply "The service doesn't appear up, but something (ie,
pid/lock file) was left behind". I'd tend to think that this is somewhat
similar to "crashed", and thus should trigger recovery using "stop".
> I think there's room for a difference of opinion on this. My guess is
> that the difference is mostly theoretical.
>
> If you kill -9 a service, then you're going to get exit 1 or 2.
Exactly.
> I don't think that warrants failing to start the service - which is
> what we'd do if we didn't map it into 7.
This is not correct. On a fresh reboot, it ought to return "3", get
mapped to "7" just fine and will be restarted. In case of "monitor"
returning 1 or 2 for a started resource, it'll be stopped and
restarted.
The only confusion can arise when a monitor returns 1 or 2 on the
initial probe - the multiple-active recovery logic will kick into effect
then. That is, probably, correct.
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/
