Hi, On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:57:30PM +0100, Florian Haas wrote: > On 11/21/11 13:03, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi, > > yes that's exactly the purpose of my question (and exactly the same > > problem of "big-monitoring-trains") : > > if we can always use start-delay to ramdomize the first monitor operation > > time on all the resources on a server, > > but if it is really deprecated, that means that in the future this option > > will no more > > be managed by Pacemaker (perhaps it already is the case ... ?) , so in > > this case > > we must not use this option. > > > > Could someone give us a clear status on this option "start-delay" ? > > If your RA needs it, then the RA is most likely broken. :) > > For monitor operations allegedly piling up, please consider this: > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/76152#76152
Thanks! Let me just add that operations which were supposed to start at the same time get spaced out. In other words, once an operation has been delayed because there were already many operations running, it is going to start later in future. In case somebody observes different, I'd be interested to hear about it. Cheers, Dejan > Hope this helps. > Cheers, > Florian > > -- > Need help with High Availability? > http://www.hastexo.com/now > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
