On 2008-07-20T17:59:21, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... which incidentially is also something we eventually need to fix, and
> > either fork a daemon when the RA starts (which then would talk to the
> > LRM directly), or have a "monitor-loop" extension which keeps running
> > and simply writes "ok" every so often to stdout or "failed" when it's
> > gone down.
> >
> > We really need to avoid forking completely.
>
> I couldn't agree more, but how are we to do that. We could
> deal with one class of monitoring for process existence, and NTT
> already provided something similar. For other kinds of monitors,
> which are more resource specific we would need some kind of
> cooperation from the resource itself. That doesn't exist. And I
> don't see it on anybody's todo list. Or am I missing something?
Apparently you missed that I described two ways of doing it just above.
;-) I have been going on about this for quite awhile, and there's an
enhancement request in the LF bugzilla for ages. I think it is assigned
to you ;-)
It's not exceptionally high priority, but it would be cool.
Regards,
Lars
--
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
