On Monday 25 February 2008, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > 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.
I just did, and I've also posted an hb_report on the problem with location and clone_node_max. Thanks much. > > 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 -- -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
