On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 19:04, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 03:45:10PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 15:07, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 08:49:52AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 08:14, HIDEO YAMAUCHI >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> >> Which operation did you cause to fail? The monitor or the fencing >> >> >> operation? >> >> > When I caused fencing, I generated time-out in RA of STONITH. >> >> > >> >> > Possibly is this phenomenon improved in Pacemaker? >> >> >> >> By design the crm has no idea which node or plugin is used (or were >> >> tried and failed). >> >> So it would be impossible to for it recover the RA on its own. >> >> >> >> It _may_ make sense for the stonithd to unload any plugin that reports >> >> a failed stonith action (and thus causing the monitor to eventually >> >> fail) but I'll leave that for Dejan to think about :-) >> > >> > stonithd doesn't unload any plugins depending on failed actions. >> >> right - it was a suggestion for a possible enhancement. >> no idea if its a good idea though. > > It would save some memory, not much though, but it'd also > increase the code's complexity. The latter probably by far > outweighs the former :)
The other benefit is that it would force the monitor to fail - but perhaps that just means the monitor isn't good enough... _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
