Am 30.10.2008 14:27 Uhr schrieb "Lars Marowsky-Bree" unter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2008-10-30T12:40:43, Annette Jäkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But my problem is that specific order of the nfsserver resource after all >> filesystem resources. This works fine until one of the file system crashes. >> Then nfsserver stops and the whole system doesnt work. Thats not what I >> want. If a file system crashes, for example because physical device was >> broken, the remaining devices and file systems should work and exported to >> clients. So maybe the nfsserver should start without any order? But I'm not >> shure that this is a good idea. I also dont want to run NFS, if there is no >> device it can manage. > > Ah, OK, so the interleaving is not your highest priority. > > I think rsc_order/_colocation constraints with score=0 achieve exactly > what you need. I think, I have to learn more about individual scores. Until now I use heartbeats default scores, never set a score manually. Meanwhile I read the linux-HA score basics docs. I understand your proposal this way: score=0 mean, that nothing occurs because no score is changed. So if a filesystem resource fails, nfsserver resource should still run. Thats fine. But whats with the starting order of the resources? Does this occur in the right order if score of order=0? And what with the condition, that mounted filesystems and nfsserver MUST run on the same node? Does'nt this mean that colocation score should be INFINITY? BTW: All order constraints in my current cib.xml are written without a score. Regarding to score documentation score then defaults to 0. All colocation constraints defaults to INFINITY. I will test the case on a testcluster with explicit setting of score=0. > >> Meanwhile I read within Michael Schwartzkopff's Linux-HA book. He presented >> an example NFS service with DRBD devices and if I understand all setup steps >> right, there is really no order from any resource to nfsserver. I dont >> understand this. > > That would be wrong. > >> Within this context I think about setting up a group of all filesystem >> resources, setting attribute "ordered" to "false" and define a single >> resource of nfsserver ordered after the group - but dont wait for the >> complete start of the group, but starts if any resource of the group is >> running. > > Well, that is the interleave part, which is not necessarily required for > correctness, but for speeding up the start. That is not currently > possible. > > I'm also not sure if it is indeed what you want; you want to have tried > starting everything before bringing online "nfsserver", I think, so that > they are all present to be exported - but not not start nfsserver if > just one of them has failed to start. > Think you're right. But does'nt this sounds like a scenario for a on_fail=ignore|block for the start and monitor operation of every filesystem resource? Regards, Annette >> In another thread (HA-NFS strategic question) Xinwei Hu suggested not to >> manage nfs but the step of exporting the devices, but seems theres no RA for >> this specific task. Until now I write /etc/exports by hand and call >> "exportfs -a" from outside heartbeat, if I add or delete a filesystem. > > Yes, this is currently missing I think. Even Xinwei's nfsserver RA is > "global" and doesn't support managing individual exports. It would be > great if this was added. > > > Regards, > Lars _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
