FYI, on my system, these are the commands I used to unmanage everything,
unmanage just a single resource, and to turn management back on.
Individual resources always use is_managed, the crm_config variable is
is-managed-default. is_managed_default had no effect.
Unmanaging:
crm_attribute -t crm_config -n is-managed-default -v false
crm_resource -r IPaddr_HA -s IPaddr_HA_inst_attr -p is_managed -v false
Manage:
crm_attribute -t crm_config -n is-managed-default -v true
crm_attribute -D -t resources -s IPaddr_HA_inst_attr -n is_managed
The resource definition for my IPaddr_HA resource is as follows, so you
can see the mapping between what is used in the commands above and where
these strings occur in the XML:
<primitive class="ocf" id="IPaddr_HA" provider="heartbeat"
type="IPaddr">
<operations>
<op id="IPaddr_HA_mon" interval="25s" name="monitor" timeout="25s"/>
</operations>
<instance_attributes id="IPaddr_HA_inst_attr">
<attributes>
<nvpair id="IPaddr_HA_attr_0" name="ip" value="10.142.113.43"/>
<nvpair id="IPaddr_HA_inst_attr-is_managed" name="is_managed"
value="false"/>
</attributes>
</instance_attributes>
</primitive>
Cheers,
Doug
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 09:18 +0200, Dominik Klein wrote:
> Doug Knight wrote:
> > All,
> > I am in the process of upgrading my servers from 2.0.8 to 2.1.3. I had
> > planned on setting all my resources on the primary to unmanaged, to
> > conduct the installation while the resources continued to run. However,
> > following the instructions here:
> >
> > http://www.linux-ha.org/v2/upgrade/reattach
> >
> > and watching the GUI status of the resources, the setting of
> > is_managed_default had no effect. I grepped the cib.xml (cibadmin -Q |
> > grep managed) I discovered two different attributes; is_managed_default
> > = false, and is-managed-default = true. When I deleted
> > is_managed_default, then set is-managed-default to false, the GUI
> > reflected all processes as unmanaged. Checking the DTD delivered with
> > the 2.0.8 version on the primary, all I see is is_managed_default
> > defined. So, which is it, is_managed_default or is-managed-default? Same
> > goes for is_managed vs is-managed.
>
> is-managed-default, although it may be is_managed_default is also
> accepted (as with default-resource-stickiness and
> default_resource_stickiness).
>
> For an individual resource, it has to be is_managed with an underscore.
>
> Regards
> Dominik
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
