> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:17:14AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > 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? > > Yes. Sorry. Just wanted to point out that you > need extra exit codes for both RUNNING and MASTER. > And a degraded Master, thinking replication, > happens to be just one failure away from data non-availability.
hi, as far as I understand this cannot be task of the cluster software to monitor if applications would be "one failure away of disaster". The cluster software has to provide failover in case of a single failure. Monitoring resources for potential availability is the classical task of a network management system. With such a system it is very easy to check if the DRBD status is "connected". Or, more important, how many failcounters every resource has. Greetings, -- Dr. Michael Schwartzkopff Guardinistr. 63 81375 München Tel: (0163) 172 50 98
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
