On 4/19/07, Junko IKEDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew
Beekhof
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:29 PM
> To: High-Availability Linux Development List
> Subject: Re: [Linux-ha-dev] transition graphs during fail-over process
>
> On 4/19/07, Junko IKEDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is not a serious problem but I just take notice of this, so please
let
> > me know whether this is a common behavior for Heartbeat or not, if you
know
> > anything about it.
> >
> > There are two nodes, a virtual IP (IPaddr) is running on one of them.
> > If the IPaddr is taken away, fail-over process is sure to succeed.
> > What I notice is;
> > Heartbeat starts IPaddr on the node which it has already been dead first
(it
> > would fail), and next, do it on the stand-by node.
> > Why does Heartbeat try to (re)start the resource on the failed node
again?
>
> presumably because you told us to run there if we can
I agree, some might want to do that.
no, i meant "you" literally.
I feel that it's a waste of time for failover...
In their opinion, if the first trial (re-start a resource on the failed
node) succeed, we won't see a failover, right?
Is there no possibility that a resource try to restart again and again on
the same node?
of course, this is the default behaviour
> > I don't understand why "pe-input3.bz2" was needed.
>
> it wasn't used?
> if so, its likely some event happened which invalidated the transition
> before it could be started
yes, this graph didn't carry out and next one was run.
Thanks a lot for your quick response!
Junko Ikeda
_______________________________________________________
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/
