On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 07:37, MAHESH, SIDDACHETTY M (SIDDACHETTY M) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi List, > > > I am new to linux-ha and this is my first attempt at it. > > My configuration: > 1. OS = Redhat Enterprise Linux 5.x > 2. HA = v2.1.3-3 RPM install (using CentoS repository rpms) > > > I am having trouble coming up with a clean cib.xml (see attachment). > > I want to implement a HA solution to satisfying the following > conditions: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 1. I have two nodes - PrimaryNode and SecondaryNode - both have dual > NICs (eth0 and eth1). 'eth1' is used for cross-over cable and heartbeat. > 'eth0' is main application interface. > > 2. The application consists of multiple services (about 14 services). I > have simplified it in the attached cib.xml to two services - service1 > and service2. The services are grouped into a resource 'ha_group' as > they have to be started/stopped in a particular sequence. > > 3. The two services update variables service1-state and service2-state > based on their running state. If successfully started, *-state is set to > a value of 100. On stop/failure, the value is set to 0.
Why? > > 4. The two nodes use a virtual IP - 10.10.1.120. > > > The HA requirements are: > ----------------------- > 1. The nodes should be in active/active configuration. All the services > need to be running on both nodes (to avoid startup delay). Only the node > that is bound to the virtual IP will service end users. > > 2. On heartbeat failure, network connectivity loss, the other node > should take over. > > 3. If one or more application services (service1 or service2) goes down, > they should be restarted upto N times. Only if they fail to run after N > restart attempts, the other node should bind to the virtual ip. Note > that it would be good if the group is shutdown on the primary node - but > not a hard requirement. > > > Where am I stuck? > ---------------- > 1. How to implement the "retry N times before migration" logic? I am not > clear on this. Has anyone encountered this scenario? If so, is there a > recommended way to approach this problem? Upgrade to pacemaker 1.0.x and set migration-threshold=N Seriously, prior to that we had the resource-failure-stickiness mess that was completely unusable and I'm glad to see it gone. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
