[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/17/2008 02:10:52
PM:
> Hi Renier,
> Can you ellaborate a little bit more on the redundancy that you
> are currently working on. I would like to get more details.
>
> Questions:
>
> - Is there any synch data between 2 instances of OpenHpi?
> - If for example, one threshold is changed in one OpenHpi when
> multiple OpenHpi are currently running?
>
I'm going to refer to this email thread:
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=C2866F9FC4CB034EB51A633DF168598602B28D79%40ssbarcelonegb&forum_name=openhpi-devel
Its hard to read (thread started from another previous thread), but
everything we discussed before about this is there.
Also, I added something at:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=532254&aid=1945076&group_id=71730
I want to echo what I said in the last email of the thread back then:
<begin quote>
"I think that if both domains, having a peer relationship, are accessing
the same hardware through a plugin, you don't need to take any steps to
keep the domains in sync other that what its specified in the spec as the
HPI user's responsibility (e.g. HPI B.02.01 spec; Peer Domains, page 23;
last paragraph, page 83).
Now, peer domains do not require:
- that same resources (by Resource ID) will have the same tag, severity,
failed flag, or entry id (order in RPT).
- that events will be received in same order.
- that internal domain events (Domain Event Log) and user events will show
up in the other domain.
- same alarm id or acknowledge status between DATs.
- same user alarms.
- alarms resulting because of domain conditions to appear in the other
domain.
You probably want some or all of these things if you are talking about
master/slave and heartbeats.
<snip>
In my personal opinion, this level of failover redundancy, that goes above
and beyond the HPI spec, is best done at a higher level middleware above
the HPI layer. For example, Linux-HA supports a stonith plugin for the
BladeCenter using OpenHPI.
However, though the primary goal of OpenHPI is to implement and comply
with the SAF HPI spec, secondary goals are guided by its volunteers and
their interests. So I would support any contributions as long as they are
clean and integrate well. "
</end of quote>
Full redundancy/sync/failover capabilities is something we could work
towards, but the feature I'm working on is something much simpler.
However, it can serve as a stepping stone for full redundancy/failover in
the future.
What I want is to first implement domains in a way that makes peer domains
useful as intended by the HPI spec, pages 23-25. That's my goal for 2.12.
We can probably start (continue?) discussing now what more do we want on
top of basic HPI peer domain functionality.
--Renier
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
Openhpi-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel
