On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Florian Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Russell, > > thanks for the feedback. Comments below. > > On 2011-11-11 16:16, Russell Bryant wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Martin Gerhard Loschwitz >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hello everybody, >>> >>> I wrote an asterisk OCF resource agent which I am hereby putting up >>> for discussion. Any feedback is welcome. >>> >>> It's available from >>> https://github.com/fghaas/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/asterisk >> >> That URL 404'd for me. I found it in the asterisk branch, not master. >> >> https://github.com/fghaas/resource-agents/blob/asterisk/heartbeat/asterisk > > Yes, correct. I did mention in an earlier email today that I had > erroneously added the changes to my master branch, and that I've now > moved them over to the asterisk one. Sorry about the confusion.
No problem. >>> I would like to get this integrated into the resource-agents package >>> so that it gets distributed automatically along with all the other >>> OCF RAs. >> >> I looked over this a bit. I'm no OCF expert, so I was mainly just >> looking at the Asterisk-isms. >> >> I think the main thing to think about here is the value the resource >> agent provides over what you would get with a more generic agent that >> just made sure the process stayed alive. > > Erm, we have those aplenty. :) The point of an application-specific > resource agent is exactly to provide more than that. Compare to, say, > the mysql, slapd and squid RAs. And the "anything" RA for the super > generic implementation. Sure, I know those exist. We're on the same page here. >> What I'm seeing is the use >> of "asterisk -rx" to talk to Asterisk. I think that approach is a >> good and sane one. Here are some of my thoughts on potential >> improvements. >> >> asterisk -rx will help verify that the process isn't totally hosed for >> some reason. The specific command issued to Asterisk, "core show >> uptime", is unlikely to help detect any additional type of error, >> though. One improvement would be "core show channels". If just about >> anything locks up inside of Asterisk, it's going to eventually >> escalate to here, and will cause this command to fail. The one major >> caveat here is that it's not a command that should be run at a very >> high frequency. > > Users would typically run this at an interval of 10-30 seconds. Is that > too high a frequency? No. I would be more concerned if it was once a second or less. >> There are additional things that would be interesting to consider, but >> they get into technology specific health checks. For example, if SIP >> is being used, I would want to send it a simple SIP request (like >> OPTIONS) to make sure it is responding. > > Which client binary would you suggest in using for that purpose? Another response said SIPp. That's my first instinct, as well. This type of functionality would have to be optional for the resource agent, though. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
