The feature has been controversial so we currently maintain it as a 
fork, but it may get merged in the future.

You currently need to disable the following OpenSAF services:

--disable-ais-msg --disable-ais-evt --disable-ais-lck --disable-ais-plm

The fork that I published is on the default branch, so it's basically 
OpenSAF 4.7.

regards,
Anders Widell

On 10/12/2015 04:19 PM, Tony Hart wrote:
> Hi Anders,
>
> Thank you I’ll definitely try this out.
>
> A couple of questions,
>
> What is the status of this feature, is it scheduled to be included in a 
> release?
> Do you have a list of services that need to be disabled?
> What OSAF version is this based on? 5.4?
>
> thanks
> —
> tony
>
>
>> On Oct 12, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Anders Widell <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> We have actually implemented something very similar to what you are talking 
>> about. With this feature, the payloads can survive without a cluster restart 
>> even if both system controllers restart (or the single system controller, in 
>> your case). If you want to try it out, you can clone this Mercurial 
>> repository:
>>
>> https://sourceforge.net/u/anders-w/opensaf-headless/
>>
>> To enable the feature, set the variable IMMSV_SC_ABSENCE_ALLOWED in 
>> immd.conf to the amount of seconds you wish the payloads to wait for the 
>> system controllers to come back. Note: we have only implemented this feature 
>> for the "core" OpenSAF services (plus CKPT), so you need to disable the 
>> optional serivces.
>>
>> / Anders Widell
>>
>> On 10/11/2015 02:30 PM, Tony Hart wrote:
>>> We have been using opensaf in our product for a couple of years now.  One 
>>> of the issues we have is the fact that payload cards reboot when the system 
>>> controllers are lost.  Although our payload card hardware will continue to 
>>> perform its functions whilst the software is down (which is desirable) the 
>>> functions that the software performs are obviously not performed (which is 
>>> not desirable).
>>>
>>> Why would we loose both controllers, surely that is a rare circumstance?  
>>> Not if you only have one controller to begin with.  Removing the second 
>>> controller is a significant cost saving for us so we want to support a 
>>> product that only has one controller.  The most significant impediment to 
>>> that is the loss of payload software functions when the system controller 
>>> fails.
>>>
>>> I’m looking for suggestions from this email list as to what could be done 
>>> for this issue.
>>>
>>> One suggestion, that would work for us, is if we could convince the payload 
>>> card to only reboot when the controller reappears after a loss rather than 
>>> when the loss initially occurs.  Is that possible?
>>>
>>> Another possibility is if we could support more than 2 controllers, for 
>>> example if we could support 4 (one active and 3 standbys) that would also 
>>> provide a solution for us (our current payloads would instead become 
>>> controllers).  I know that this is not currently possible with opensaf.
>>>
>>> thanks for any suggestions,
>>> —
>>> tony
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Opensaf-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-users
>>



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-users

Reply via email to