>>> Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> schrieb am 28.11.2011 um 21:37 in >>> Nachricht <caedlwg3zuwts8dupyqcr6upak_5ci15shb5cuylhbnmlsgx...@mail.gmail.com>: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Ulrich Windl > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> schrieb am 28.11.2011 um 00:26 in > Nachricht > > <CAEDLWG0LxjrvRd0mOQEpe0NrY+-X=pslkxrn0lhpceady6q...@mail.gmail.com>: > >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Florian Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On 11/25/11 13:29, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> > My understanding was that only probes would still occur (on > >> > cluster-recheck-interval, or when new nodes joined the cluster). And I > >> > maintain that that would be the intuitively "correct" behavior for > >> > unmanaged resources. Andrew? > >> > >> No, any defined recurring monitors will still be executed. > >> This allows a resource to accurately depend on the state of an unmanaged > >> one. > > > > And therefore you need to monitor the _unmanaged_ resource? Strange. > > Now is the point where you explain how the cluster going to know what > state of the unmanaged resource, /without/ monitoring.
Hi! The state of an unmanaged resource is the state when it left the managed meta-state. It's valid to assume that an unmanaged resource does not change state, or at least: If the unmanaged resource changes state, the cluster should not care as long as the resource is unmanaged. This assumption seems more logical that re-monitoring an unmanaged resource. Regards, Ulrich _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
