Andrew, Thanks for the answer.
It will really help the users if that is mentioned in the Pacemaker_Explained.pdf under the section 9.3.2. Moving Resources Due to Failure Thanks for the document. Raffi > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-ha- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Beekhof > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:51 AM > To: General Linux-HA mailing list > Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] problem with pind > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 8:51 PM, S, MOHAMED (MOHAMED)** CTR ** > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The Pacemaker_Explained.pdf document says that > > > > " setting of migration-threshold=2 and failure-timeout=60s would cause > the resource to move to a new node after 2 failures, and allow it to move > back (depending on the stickiness and constraint scores) after one > minute." > > > > Can you please help me understand what will happen on the following > scenarios in 2 node active passive configuration? > > > > 1 - If one resource failed twice within 60s, it will move to the other > node. > > This is clear to understand. > > > > 2 - If one resource failed once and there is no failure within 60s, will > the pacemaker reset the failcounts of that resource, so that the > failcounts are tracked freshly? > > Yes, but only with recent releases of 1.1.x > > > > > The failcounts are not reset if the migration-threshold didn't occur > within the failure-timeout period. Is that a bug in pacemaker-1.0.5-4.1? > > > No, its a new feature in 1.1.x > _______________________________________________ > 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
