On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.de> wrote: > On 2011-07-06T15:06:01, Craig Lesle <craig.le...@bruden.com> wrote: > >> Interesting that st_timeout does not show 75 seconds on any try and looks >> rather random, like it's calculated. > > ... right. I hadn't noticed that before. > > So what's happening is that, in pacemaker's fencing/remote.c, the > stonith-timeout specified is divided up in 10% for _querying_ the list > of nodes a given stonith device can retrieve, and 90% for then > performing an actual operation. (Compare initiate_remote_stonith_op() > and call_remote_stonith()) > > I think this is counter-intuitive, to say the least.
Probably right. If you want to change it to add 10%, go ahead :-) > > In your initial case, it just so happens that 100s * 90% obviously > exactly matches your sbd msgwait, so an increase of +10s just wasn't > enough. > > > > Regards, > Lars > > -- > Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc. > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, > HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde > > _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
