Hi, On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 04:10:57PM -0600, Michael Brennen wrote: > On Friday 22 February 2008, Michael Brennen wrote: > > > <rsc_location id="location_iscsi106" rsc="iscsi_fs"> > > <rule id="prefered_location_iscsi106" score="-INFINITY" boolean_op="and"> > > <expression attribute="#uname" id="location_iscsi_01" operation="ne" > > value="lvc1.fishnet.us"/> > > <expression attribute="#uname" id="location_iscsi_02" operation="ne" > > value="lvc2.fishnet.us"/> > > </rule> > > </rsc_location> > > > > ERROR: <expression operation="ne"...>: [ne] is not a legal value for > > attribute operation > > > > Is that correct? The above is derived from this page: > > http://www.linux-ha.org/DRBD/HowTov2 > > > > <rsc_location id="drbd0-placement-1" rsc="ms-drbd0"> > > <rule id="drbd0-rule-1" score="-INFINITY"> > > <expression id="exp-01" value="xen-1" attribute="#uname" operation="ne"/> > > <expression id="exp-02" value="xen-2" attribute="#uname" operation="ne"/> > > </rule> > > </rsc_location> > > There is a mismatch between ciblint and heartbeat. ciblint only > acknowledges 'neq'; heartbeat only accepts 'ne'. I ran a test of neq and > this error was thrown in the logs. > > Feb 22 15:27:38 lvc4 cib: [25389]: ERROR: Value "neq" for attribute operation > of expression is not among the enumerated set
It seems like ciblint is wrong. Please open a bug for it. > Part of the perplexing problem of the cib that I sent earlier is that the > location directives are not followed. In particular the iscsi resource > continually tries to run on lvc4, but per the above location > expression "location_iscsi106", it is forbidden to run on anything except > lvc1 or lvc2. I have wondered if the location expressions were being > evaluated, and now this question of 'ne' and 'neq' is another wrinkle. I > guess I still wonder if I don't have something fundamentally wrong. > > I may try an asymmetric cluster with positively specified locations. > > The latest cib is attached; the major lint complaint now is the 'ne' > expression. > > The other lint complaint is 'transition_idle_timeout' in crm_config. This is > the spelling documented in crm.dtd. This originally came from > http://wiki.linux-ha.org/AtulAthavale, where it is > spelled 'transition-idle-timeout'. The only place the latter spelling is > found in the source tree are these files: > > /usr/src/heartbeat-2.1.3/tools/haresources2cib.py.in: > "transition-idle-timeout=5min", > /usr/src/heartbeat-2.1.3/tools/haresources2cib.py: > "transition-idle-timeout=5min", The latter (with dashes) spelling should be current. There was a bug opened for that: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1801 It's not clean whether the transition-idle-timeout is supported or if it's been replaced. Thanks, Dejan _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
