>> I would have thought it to be HB's job >> to call those level 0 checks after a >> resource state changing operation.
> ... So there are a number of reasons why > its a good idea for RAs to do this. I understand. It's just that following what Alan wrote a year ago: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/users/38913#38913 > What is the state of the world? > Is the state of the world a problem? ... I was left with the impression that HB wanted a "hands-off" approach, as like having itself a strategy to handle ambiguous "runs-unhealthy" states through multiple "STOP" and "START" calls, scrutinized with multiple in-between "MONITOR" calls, while you seem to be telling me the RA has got to do whatever it needs to hand over a "STARTED or STOPPED" state to HB, including the "shaping" of the resource to match the state HB thinks the resource is in, "STARTED" or "STOPPED", depending on HB's last RA call to prevent HB from counting a "failed" state. May I kindly ask you to explain the following: 1) Assuming a resource is completely stopped, what is HB's next RA call (or sequence of calls if HB has more than one call planned) when a START returns: a) status=1 b) status=7 c) status=2 Does HB attempt a STOP&START sequence of the resource, undertaking to perform a STOP on an already stopped resource ? 2) Assuming a resource was previously successfully started, what is HB's strategy and next RA call (or sequence of calls if HB has more than one call planned) when a routine MONITOR returns: a) status=1 b) status=7 c) status=2 Does HB attempt a STOP&START strategy of the resource? Or does HB count a "failed" state for that resource and initiates a failover ? >> Note that monitor operations are optional. >> If they're not defined, then they're not run. So HB never attempts to capture a snapshot of the state of all resources before undertaking a state changing operation, restricting itself on ... - relying on the state HB thinks the resources are in after having started/stopped them (the last STOP or START performed by HB on that resource), AND, - reacting upon an unexpected status returned by a scheduled MONITOR call Is this correct ? Again, thank you very much for your time reading an replying to my concerns. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
