Hi Andrew, > who said anything about re-inventing? > "re-implementing" sure, but there aren't exactly many FOSS > cluster projects to be borrowing code from.
Thus I tried to outline the ideas - since I just used these clusters for a couple of years. > granted not everything about our implementations are always > perfect^, but there's no need to get all preachy about it. Sorry if that came over as an insult. But I sometimes have a feeling that Heartbeat v2 is too general in some points. This makes it potentially better suited for any use case (even those no one can imagine yet) - but it also adds complicity to some simple tasks. > ^ you rightly point out the fail-count code, to which I'd > reply that we've been planning to do something about it for > some time but lack the resources. [...] > > So if you start with timing in lrm - please think about the above. I just wanted to transfer the idea to the right minds. ;-) But back to the original question: > >>> Is there a way to tell Linux-HA to retry a failed resource after a > >>> certain amount of time again? [...] The mentioned cluster had also a feature called "auto-clear" which would clear the faulted-state after some time. I personally dislike this idea - while I think the idea of a confidence-interval, which clears the fail-count if a resource has not faulted and is online again is a good one. Kind regards, Nils _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
