Hi Darren, On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:08:25PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > Sorry for top-posting. Afflicted with Outlook.
Np, but that's too bad you've got to use that :-/ > Here is the STONITH agent. I've tested it on both old and new and it > seems fine. Looks good. Applied. Many thanks! Cheers, Dejan > Regards > Darren > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dejan > Muhamedagic > Sent: 08 September 2009 18:27 > To: General Linux-HA mailing list > Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] ibmrsa-telnet STONITH Not Working > > Hi Darren, > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 04:52:31PM +0100, [email protected] > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Darren, > > > > Hi Dejan. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 04:48:30PM +0100, > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > The ibmrsa plugin requires mpcli to be installed and the ibmrsa- > > > telnet > > > > plugin doesn't work with newer RSA boards. It seems the hostlist > > > error > > > > was a dead herring leading me up the garden path. > > > > > > > > I've altered the ibmrsa-telnet plugin a little to get it working > > with > > > > the new format of the CLI (username : changed to login: > changed > to > > > > system> etc). Not sure of how to officially submit patches or > > > anything > > > > so if it's useful I've attached my changed version. > > > > > > Darn, why did they have to change the text, as if "login" were so > > > much better than "username". > > > > > > The only reasonable way would be to check the RSA release and > > > then to wait for the correct string. But first we have to figure > > > out when the change took place, that may be close to impossible. > > > I doubt that such information is in the release notes ;-> > > > > > > Looking at the Telnet documentation, there is another method > > > which waits for a set of regular expressions: > > > > > > Telnet.expect(list...) > > > > > > Perhaps we could modify the plugin to use that instead of > > > read_until(). I don't have an RSA board available though. Could > > > you try this out? > > > > I could certainly try this, right about now is the perfect time to do > it > > too. > > Great! > > > > > > > BTW, you also increased timeouts. Was that while you were testing > > > or is it really needed? At any rate, it's better to go with > > > longer timeouts. > > > > The prompts take quite a long time to appear, certainly longer than > the > > original timeouts. I think 20s should be long enough to allow for the > > prompt but to time out in a reasonable time if something is wrong. > I'll > > have a look and see what I can do. Alternatively perhaps there can be > a > > ibmrsa-telnet1 and ibmrsa-telnet2 to allow for both revisions? > > I'd like to avoid that if at all possible, it will be source of > endless confusion and a maintenance problem. As far as timeouts > go, it's OK if we adopt the longer ones. If a fence action > times out, that happens only once and ends in error. It may take > a bit longer for that to happen, but it should be fairly seldom > on a well administered cluster. > > Cheers, > > Dejan > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Dejan > > > > > > > Darren > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
