On 9/30/07, YAMAUCHI HIDEO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/25/07, YAMAUCHI HIDEO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > you also neglected to mention that you're running a custom > > > > version of heartbeat > > > > > what patches have you applied and are you planning on sharing them? > > > > > > > > oh dear, i seem to have made a mistake here :-( > > > > please accept my apologies > > > OK. > > > > > > But, doubt is left. > > > Though failcount does not go up after resource trouble of the first node > > > happened, why does clone stop it? > > > By your answer, clone of the first node does not seem to stop. > > > > > > In addition, I tried to appoint rsc_order, but the situation > > was the same. > > > # <rsc_order id="order_oracle_www" from="clone0" action="start" > > type="after" > > > to="ipaddr"/> > > > > > > Will not there be a problem for clone start when I appointed rsc_order? > > > > the clone will only be able to start once the ipaddr has started. > > if this what you want, then the above constraint is correct > > I set rsc_order. > > But, clone started in the first node after an IPaddr resource caused a > monitor error in all nodes. > If my understanding is not wrong, does not the clone stop in the first node > by this rsc_order?
it should, but you're probably hitting a bug that i fixed a couple of weeks ago while i was writing some documentation for the various constraints the latest interim build has the fix included > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Node: rh44-1 (4be91ff0-c0da-46a1-b913-acf19d8fcfb6): online > Node: rh44-2 (2f14e3d7-aa37-4e95-9634-cd44ced9bea7): online > > Clone Set: clone0 > clone0-diskcheck:0 (heartbeat::ocf:Dummy): Stopped > clone0-diskcheck:1 (heartbeat::ocf:Dummy): Started rh44-1 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > fail-count of all nodes goes up to 1. > Though fail-count of ipaddr goes up if rsc_order is effective, why does the > clone start? > > I attached a file just to make sure. > > > > Can I request improvement if this movement is current specifications? > > > # Because I want to never use stotnith. > > > > why don't you like stonith? > > > > its actually the only reliable way to be sure that an unresponsive > > node is really dead (and that it is now safe to start using your data > > on another node) > > I do not ignore stonith. > I want to use stonith as the last method. > (For example I want to wait for the operator's operation without stonith. ) > > Is the change not to start the clone resource again by this specification > difficult( stonith = false, on_fail = fence)? > If the change is difficult, I understand as the current specification. it should work already in the latest interim build _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
