DAIKI MATSUDA wrote:
>>> Hi, All
>>>
>>> I add the new function for heartbeat-2.0.8 and attached its patch file.
>>>
>>> The function is to apply the new timeout parameters ( keepalive,
>>> deadtime, deadping, warntime ) without stopping the heartbeat services.
>>> Currently heartbeat boot scripts supply the 'reload' or 'forcereload'
>>> function, but it, they are same, does stop the services and the HA
>>> services are moved to standby node, because its process kills the forked
>>> heartbeat processes and clients ( crmd etc. ).
>>> So, we think to without suspending the services make the changing
>>> parameters to apply to driving nodes. Current feature is following.
>>> 1. changing ha.cf <http://ha.cf> file for 4 parameters
>>> 2. send working parent heartbeat process signal SIGRTMAX ( e.g. kill -s
>>> SIGRTMAX `cat /var/run/heartbeat.pid` (Why do I choose SIGRTMAX? I do
>>> not find the unused good signal.)
>>>
>>> As we research the heatbeat, it may be safety. And I want to listen to
>>> your issues for patch and functions.
>> Sorry to be coming in so late on this, but I was working on the release
>> for many weeks now. I really like the idea of dynamically modifying the
>> heartbeat configuration - but if you're going to go to the trouble to do
>> it, I'd like to see it done more generally.
>>
>> In other words, I'd like to be able to change nearly any parameter in
>> ha.cf at run time without restarting heartbeat.
>>
>> This would require reworking (and improving) the way heartbeat starts
>> up. This would be probably about twice or three times as much work as
>> what you've done, but it would be much more useful, and much more general.
>>
>> In the end, if done right, it could be groundwork to letting let us
>> eventually be able receive config updates from the CIB. [I know there's
>> a bootstrapping issue, but we can deal with that when we get to deciding
>> to do that work].
>>
>> I have thought about this and have some specific ideas on what kinds of
>> things need to be done to make this happen.
>
> Hi, Alan.
>
> I understood what you say and think it is very good idea to tread all
> parameters in ha.cf. I thought my implementation is for testing and it
> is better that you, ha-dev team, make its feature.
I don't know quite what you meant by "it is better that you, ha-dev
team, make it's feature".
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
