On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Joe Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It suggests that the RA implementation of the > 'START' >>> and 'STOP' operations, should include the code as > to >>> perform, before exiting, ALL the tests that are >>> carried out at ALL implemented check-levels of >>> monitoring, as to reliably return a resource's >>> status, > >> It just relies on the RA properly starting or >> stoping the resource. It's up to the RA to the >> its job right. > > Sure, but in order to determine the status of a > resource, and declare that resource as > "running-healthy", the expected outcome of a START > operation, it requires the RA to perform *as part of* > the START operation, the best status verification the > RA can do, that is, what it does exactly under the > most detailed monitoring it can perform, namely a > "MONITOR check-level 20" ? > > And, if the best status verification (MONITOR) has to > *always* be performed, what is then the point of > having *lesser* performing status verification, all > regardless of the time it takes for these status > verifications to complete ?
How does this have any impact on your claim that the cluster should check the resource after starts and stops? Regardless of who performs the check, it still happens. We simply require the RA does it before it returns thus avoiding pointless network traffic and processing. Thats just the way it is. > A state where "it is advantageous to use" a "recover" > function, provided and advertised by the RA, when > compared to a stop/start operation. > > OCF RA API, section 3.4.4 "recover" -ENOTIMPLEMENTED _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
