Hi Andrew, So can you help to review the patch or give a better solution for that ?
Thanks. 2007/11/8, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Nov 8, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Xinwei Hu wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > The only resources are clone sets of riloe stonith: > > """ > > <clone ordered="true" id="clone_stonith_APS06"> > > <instance_attributes id="clone_stonith_APS06_instance_attrs"> > > <attributes> > > <nvpair id="clone_stonith_APS06_clone_max" > > name="clone_max" value="5"/> > > <nvpair id="clone_stonith_APS06_clone_node_max" > > name="clone_node_max" value="1"/> > > </attributes> > > </instance_attributes> > > <primitive class="stonith" type="external/riloe" > > provider="heartbeat" id="stonith_APS06"> > > <instance_attributes id="stonith_APS06_instance_attrs"> > > <attributes> > > <nvpair id="stonith_APS06_hostlist" name="hostlist" > > value="hashgd1svraps06"/> > > <nvpair id="stonith_APS06_ilo_hostname" > > name="ilo_hostname" value="10.152.115.205"/> > > <nvpair id="stonith_APS06_ilo_user" name="ilo_user" > > value="HAPS"/> > > <nvpair id="stonith_APS06_ilo_password" > > name="ilo_password" value="heartbeat"/> > > <nvpair id="stonith_APS06_ilo_can_reset" > > name="ilo_can_reset" value="1"/> > > <nvpair id="stonith_APS06_ilo_protocol" > > name="ilo_protocol" value="2.0"/> > > <nvpair id="stonith_APS06_ilo_powerdown_method" > > name="ilo_powerdown_method" value="button"/> > > <nvpair name="target_role" > > id="stonith_APS06:0_target_role" value="started"/> > > </attributes> > > </instance_attributes> > > </primitive> > > </clone> > > """ > > 2007/11/8, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> On Nov 8, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Xinwei Hu wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> While setting no_quorum_policy to freeze & stonith_enabled, > >>> heartbeat keeps complaining: > >> > >> i'm pretty sure the existing logic is correct > >> what does the rest of your config look like? > >> > > So that what I don't understand is why we set action->needs to > > rsc_req_stonith > > first(utils.c:597), > > this is the part that, i suspect, needs to change > > > and then complain about it(utils.c:608) ? > > Does that mean we should combine the freeze policy with stonith > > enabled ? > >>> > >>> """ > >>> ERROR: unpack_operation: Stonith resources (eg. stonith_APS06:3) > >>> cannot require fencing to start > >>> """ > >>> It's caused by a logic error(to me at least), which can be fixed by > >>> the attached patch. > >>> > >>> Any comments on how to clean it up? > >>> <utils.patch>_______________________________________________________ > >>> 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/ > _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
