Resending, based on following ambiguous response received:
Your mail to 'Opensaf-users' with the subject Clarification of CSISet timeout
vs HA state
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held: Message has implicit destination
Is this mailing list still Active and valid?
Thanks.
Original message follows:
=======================
Hi all,
I am looking for a clarification of the expected SAF behavior in response to an
AMF issued CSISetCallback() command. We are using OpenSAF 5.2.0, and have
observed the following anomaly.
1. We are using a 2N redundancy model.
2. A component has (intentionally) configured an extremely long
CSISetCallbackTimeout. Note - by specification, this number is of type
SaTimeT, and can represent a number in the range of up to ~292 years.
3. For this example case, the Assignment of ACTIVE has occurred as expected,
with no issues or anomalies.
4. Now, continuing with the example, when the Assignment of STANDBY occurs,
the component is dependent upon other external resources, and since it has a
very long csisetcallbacktimtout, it chooses to NOT RESPOND at all to the AMF.
5. The AMF, without having received either an ERROR response, or a TIMEOUT
response, has "assumed" the component has complied with its request. This
results in the following behavior:
* An almost instantaneous notification that the Service Instance
Assignment has completed.
* The HA State is reported as STANDBY
i. This gives a
misleading/false representation of the system. If OpenSAF has reported that
both an ACTIVE and a STANDBY are available, then I should be able to failover
from the ACTIVE to the STANDBY. But, in this case, the STANDBY has not
acknowledged his role, so the failover will not succeed. This does not seem
like expected behavior for a High Availability System.
ii. We also considered using
the HAReadinessStateSet() API, but after reviewing the documentation, we see
that this feature is currently not implemented in OpenSAF. Is this feature
expected to be included in any near term release?
So, it seems like the AMF should be more restrictive in reporting out these
state changes - they should be based on actual acknowledgement of the intended
roles, not assumed. Can someone please clarify this AMF behavior.
Thanks.
Jim
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-users
