Summary: amfd : failover dependent during node lock in SI dependency across SG [#803] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): amf #803 Peer Reviewer(s): Hans F., Nagendra Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es):All Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>>
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services y OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- Please see commit log below and ticket. changeset 17667f98b22a9305c011139b5b4238c97cbbd06e Author: [email protected] Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:27:58 +0530 amfd : failover dependent during node lock in SI dependency across SG [#803] Problem: When SI dependency is configured across the application, then during node lock AMF is not performing failover dependent even after successful failover of sponsor. Instead if this AMF deletes both active and standby assignmetns of the dependent SI. Reason: During node lock AMF sends quisced assignments to all the SUs hosted on the node. In the present case successful quiesced response first for dependent. Since AMF does not see any active sponsor for this dependent, it deletes all the assignment of this dependent SI ignoring the case that its sponsor it in the failover phase. Fix: Since sponsor is undergoing failover, AMF should mark the dep state of dependent SI as FAILOVER_UNDER_PROGRESS. Once failover of sponsor completes, dependent should be failovered to its respetive standby. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/si_dep.cc | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- 1)Node lock and sponsor responds first and depndent responds after successfull failover of sponsor. 2)Node lock and dependent responds first. 3)Node lock with sponsor responds first but dependent responds before the completion of failover of sponsor. PASS 4)Above test cases with shutdown operation 5)Failover of node hosting all the active SUs for sponsor and dependents. 6)Lock of active sponsor SU. 7)Lock of active dependent SU. Will test more configurations with SI deps within SU. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- All PASS Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Hans and Nagendra. Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y powerpc n n powerpc64 n n Reviewer Checklist: ------------------- [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries that need proper data filled in. ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is too much content into a single commit. ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication of what has changed between each re-send. ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the the threaded patch review. ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results for in-service upgradability test. ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. Faster operations. Version large binaries. Built-in WAN optimization and the freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
