Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:19:55AM +0100, Johan Hoeke wrote:
>> LS,
>>
>> Running a 2 node cluster, heartbeat-2.1.3-3 centos rpms, RH AS 4.6
>>
>> While testing a "maintenance scenario" for the cluster I set all
>> resources to is_managed is false,
>> and proceeded to shut oracle by hand, oracle being one of the resources.
>>
>> Within minutes, the node was stonithed. The log shows that this was
>> right after the monitor operation for the oracle resource came back with
>> return code 7:
>>
>> Conclusion: the monitor operation was still running even though the
>> resource was unmanaged, and it forced a fencing action.
> 
> Oops. So there's an on_fail=fence for this monitor operation. Is
> that necessary?

We want the cluster to failover if oracle breaks for whatever reason.
At least I think we do ;) We're discussing exactly how we want the
cluster to behave. This question is more about understanding why the
cluster behaved this way.

> 
>> I then made a script which in addition to changing the resources to
>> is_managed = false also set the monitor operations to disabled=true.
>> This worked, now I am able to shutdown oracle by hand without a fencing
>> action starting up.
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> It this expected behavior? Should monitor operations keep running even
>> though the resources are set to is_managed=false?
> 
> Yes. There was some discussion about it and the majority of
> votes went this way, i.e. that monitoring should continue even
> for the unmanaged resources.

OK, thanks for the clarification Dejan!
> 
>> Is explicitly setting
>> the monitor operations to disable=true the "right way" to prevent
>> unwanted fencing actions during cluster maintenance?
> 
> I'd say yes. But note that I was also in favour of having
> monitoring disabled by default.

noted ;)

and thanks again for your help.

regards,

Johan


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems

Reply via email to