Hi Andrew, <quote> I'd set it to something like 5 minutes... Think of it like "If I get N failures in /under/ M minutes, then the node is having big problems so please move the resource"
So in your case you'd need 3 failures in /less than/ 5 minutes to trigger failover. Does that help? </quote> Yes. This really helps. This really clarifies the failure timeout behavior. Thanks, Mahesh -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Beekhof Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 12:45 PM To: General Linux-HA mailing list Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] crm_mon not showing resource status correctly On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:08 AM, MAHESH, SIDDACHETTY M (SIDDACHETTY M) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Thanks for the response. Is there a "best practice" on tuning the failure > timeout? I'd set it to something like 5 minutes... Think of it like "If I get N failures in /under/ M minutes, then the node is having big problems so please move the resource" So in your case you'd need 3 failures in /less than/ 5 minutes to trigger failover. Does that help? > Also, I am using pacemaker now. So, should I direct questions to the > pacemaker list or is it ok to post pacemaker related questions to this list? Either one. _______________________________________________ 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
