I'd be interested in taking such a feature but this isn't the list to discuss it. Pacemaker is not a Linux-HA project.
Try http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 23:41, Mark Hamzy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > I am working on a feature to add system health metrics to HA. With this > information, HA could failover nodes away from hardware that might have > problems. > > The following is a short description of what we want this new feature to > do. > > Feature Name: Health monitoring support > Purpose: Allow pacemaker to schedule resources in a way that's sensitive > to a variety of server-related health metrics > > Description: > Add support in pacemaker for a class of attributes which would be specially > treated. Under this proposal, all attributes defined for a node whose name > matches the regular expression /^#health-.*$/ would be automatically added > into the score for each resource being considered for scheduling on that > node. > > The purpose of this is to allow multiple independent health monitors to > each set their own health status and have that taken into account when > scheduling resources. For example, IBM might define one called > #health-ibmserver. Someone using smarttools (disk health monitors) might > define one called #health-smarttools. Someone else using IPMI might define > one called #health-ipmi. This means that this feature is not specific to > any vendor, and various health monitor providers can develop health metrics > for their hardware and not have to coordinate with each other in their > development process. > > Typical usage of these variables is expected to be something like this: > > Health Attribute-value Meaning > green 1000 server is happy, capable of running any resource > yellow 0 server is marginal - it is desirable to > schedule resources somewhere else if you can > red -INFINITY server is unreliable (but still up) and should not > be used > > Note that the value given for green is likely to be configuration-specific, > and should be configurable by the various health monitoring tools as they > get developed. > > Special Note: > IBM is already in the process of developing such a health monitoring tool > for IBM X (intel-class) servers. > > So, what do you all think of this proposed functionality? Does it sound > reasonable? Comments are appreciated. > > Mark_______________________________________________ > 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
