Keep in mind that ping -I isn't "standard" It doesn't work in FreeBSD and probably Solaris/Mac OS either.
Matthew Soffen Lead Computer Scientist ISO New England - http://www.iso-ne.com/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Florian Haas Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:19 AM To: General Linux-HA mailing list Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] Antw: Re: Q: What type of dependency is "colocation"? On 2011-07-11 17:08, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>> Florian Haas <[email protected]> schrieb am 11.07.2011 um >>>> 16:46 in > Nachricht <[email protected]>: >> On 2011-07-11 15:14, Ulrich Windl wrote: > [...] >>> OK: >>> primitive prm_rksapr00_ping ocf:pacemaker:ping \ >>> params ... \ >> >> Any specific reason why you're cutting configuration parameters out? > > They are not relevant and only add water to the soup. But they're... never mind, you'd probably interpret it as another case of not liking your opinion. >>> op monitor interval="300s" timeout="60" \ >>> op start interval="0" timeout="60" \ >>> utilization utl_cpu="1" utl_ram="1" \ >>> meta priority="2050" target-role="Started" >>> group grp_rksapr00 prm_rksapr00_ip_1 ... \ >> >> Here too? > > It is not important how many members the group has, right? > >> >>> meta priority="2000" resource-stickiness="100000" >> target-role="Started" >>> order ord_rksapr00_ping_after_saprouter inf: grp_rksapr00 >>> prm_rksapr00_ping colocation col_rksapr00_saprouter_ping inf: >>> grp_rksapr00 prm_rksapr00_ping >> >> Why is the ping resource not cloned, and what is this colocation >> supposed to achieve? > > The ping should actually just ping to keep a network connection alive. > The other is just a side effect. The ping should use the source IP > address (not possible with standard Linux ping) What exactly isn't possible with "standard Linux ping"? What about "ping -I"? > that prm_rksapr00_ip_1 provides. Originally I wanted to write an RA for it, bit the pingd seems to do what I need. Does "crm ra info ocf:heartbeat:IPsrcaddr" not help at all? >>> OK, so it seems you implemented a strange kind of c "colocation" >>> that is >> part of co-location, and part of "depends_on". I'd like to have clean >> and separate implementations: >> >> Excellent. Send a patch! > > It's like Christmas wishes: we all have to wait until Christmas. ;-) No, you'll have to wait until someone implements the functionality you want. Or you implement it yourself. >>> For co-location: If "A is near B", obviously "B is near A", so >>> co-location is >> symmetric by nature. >>> >>> For "depends_on": if "A depends_on B" it makes not much sense if "B >> depends_on A" (is this antisymmetric?) >>> >>> Your implementation mixed both, a symmetric and a non-symmetric relation. >> Naturally this causes problems. >> >> Out of curiosity, to whom does the possessive pronoun apply? > > Plural meaning: Those whose names I don't know, but are responsible for the implementation. Ah. >>> Well actually I feel you just don't like any opinion others than your own. >> >> Says exactly who, about whom? > > OK, singular this time: The author of the message. It takes one to know one, doesn't it? Florian _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
