On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Lars Ellenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:43:27AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof 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". > > >> Maybe we need to add OCF_RUNNING_BUT_DEGRADED to the OCF spec (and the PE). > > And, of course, OCF_MASTER_BUT_ONLY_ONE_FAILURE_AWAY_FROM_COMPLETE_DATA_LOSS
Feeling quite alright there? > If it makes people happy to see > > Master/Slave Set: ms_drbd_data (DEGRADED) > p_drbd_data:0 (ocf::linbit:drbd): Master bk1 (DEGRADED) > p_drbd_data:1 (ocf::linbit:drbd): Slave bk2 (DEGRADED) > > in crm_mon, then sure, go for it. > > Other than that, I don't think that pacemaker can do much about > degraded resources. The intention was that the PE would treat it the same as OCF_RUNNING - hence the name. It would exist purely to give admin tools the ability to provide additional feedback to users - like you outlined above. Essentially it would be a way for the RA to say "Something isn't right, but you (ie. pacemaker) shouldn't do anything about it other than let a human know". Anything more complex is WAY out of scope. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
