Serge Dubrouski wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 03:47:04PM +0100, Dominik Klein wrote:
>> thanky you for the script and for pointing to the right direction.
>> May I change the format of the output? (Yes, I also saw the thing with
>> wrong headings)
>
> Here's a newer version. It can now read resource-stickiness and
> resource_stickiness (notice the - and _). Both is possible, but up to now,
> only one was looked for.
> Also fixed a problem with the headings being mixed up.
I was wondering if you could do it the other way around, i.e. one
gives failover requirements such as after third failure move to
the other node and the script calculates the various stickiness
values. How about that?
And I was wondering why it can't be done on CRM level? It would be
great to be able to define a max number of allowed failures and let
CRM to calculate all necessary scores.
Full ACK. That would be nice.
I guess I could script sth like that.
But imho: If you read the ScoreCalculation page on linux-ha.org,
calculating the necessary values for resource_failure_stickiness should
be possible for someone who is to administer a cluster.
Regards
Dominik
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
