On 2011-11-29T08:33:01, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> wrote:
> The state of an unmanaged resource is the state when it left the managed
> meta-state.
That is not correct. An unmanaged resource is not *managed*, but its
state is still relevant to other resources that possibly depend on it.
The original design goal was for unmanaged resources to be
"placeholders" whose state could be externally set. If you monitor them,
they'll still be monitored.
People use it to disable operations on a resource, but the Raid1 agent
with a > 0 check depth is special: it is documented to actually do
something in its monitor operation, namely try to rebuild RAID sets
(which mdadmd alas can't do). If you don't want that, don't enable it.
> 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.
No. Your story would also be consistent, but is not what "unmanaged"
does (which is also consistent - there's a clear difference between
managed and monitored). That's what we have a maintenance mode for.
(But the mdadm operations the RA does also shouldn't cause data
corruption. That strikes me as an MD bug.)
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
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
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
