Hi Dejan, I wait for the FIX of the bug.
Thank you. Hideo Yamauchi. --- Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
