On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, matilda matilda wrote:
Peter Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 16.07.2007 10:58 >>>
According to http://www.linux-ha.org/OCFResourceAgent
a Resource Agent is required to support the monitor
action. But in the MailTo agent I find:
ocf_log warn "Don't stat/monitor me! MailTo is a pseudo resource agent,
so the status reported may be incorrect"
That indicates in my cib I should not define a monitor action
for the MailTo agent. So my first question is:
Why is it legal to not define a monitor action while it is
required for any resource agent to support monitoring?
1) MailTo RA does have the monitor call. So it can be called
and the required API is fullfilled.
2) In the case of MailTo the output of 'monitor' is a warning
to the log. You can monitor (requirement) but you need not.
3) 'monitor' doesn't make sense to MailTo as this is a 'oneshot'
RA, because there is no ongoing process after calling start.
there is a second issue with MailTo
part of the OCF specs are that it is considered 'safe' to call start or stop
multiple times on a RA, with MailTo this will generate multiple e-mails.
this isn't a fatal problem, but it is an annoyance (I've had the shutting down
on the inactive box in a pair generate MailTo messages from both boxes, causing
management to freak out)
are there enough 'oneshot' type things that it is worth adding the concept to
the cib directly rather then trying to fake it out in the scripts?
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
