Am 01.04.2011 16:38, schrieb Lars Ellenberg: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:35:19AM +0200, Christoph Bartoschek wrote: >> Am 01.04.2011 11:27, schrieb Florian Haas: >>> On 2011-04-01 10:49, Christoph Bartoschek wrote: >>>> Am 01.04.2011 10:27, schrieb Andrew Beekhof: >>>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Lars Ellenberg >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 06:18:07PM +0100, Christoph Bartoschek wrote: >>>>>>> I am missing the state: running degraded or suboptimal. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep, "degraded" is not a state available for pacemaker. >>>>>> Pacemaker cannot do much about "suboptimal". >>>>> >>>>> I wonder what it would take to change that. I suspect either a >>>>> crystal ball or way too much knowledge of drbd internals. >>>> >>>> The RA would be responsible to check this. For drbd any diskstate >>>> different from UpToDate/UpToDate is suboptimal. >>> >>> Have you actually looked at the resource agent? It does already evaluate >>> the disk state and adjusts the master preference accordingly. What else >>> is there to do? >> >> Maybe I misunderstood Andrew's comment. I read it this way: If we >> introduce a new state "suboptimal", would it be hard to detect it? >> >> I just wanted to express that detecting suboptimality seems not to be >> that hard. > > But that state is useless for pacemaker, > since it cannot do anything about it. > > I thought I made that clear. >
You made clear that pacemaker cannot do anything about it. However crm_mon could report it. One may think that is can be neglected. But the current output of crm_mon is unexpected for me. I have to check whether ocf:pacemaker:ClusterMon reports the score changes done by the DRBD RA in such a situation. This would help. Christoph _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
