On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 09:49:05AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:18:37AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> Dejan: looks like something in the lrm library. >> >> Any idea why the message doesn't contain lrm_opstatus? >> > >> > Becase this monitor operation never run. Which seems to be a >> > plausible explanation since the start-delay is set to 600s. >> >> Isn't that what LRM_OP_PENDING is for? >> I'm happy to see that at least msg_to_op() maps missing fields to that value >> :-) > > Actually it does, it's just that the library code logs the > warning and then the whole message. The missing op_status is then > set to LRM_OP_PENDING.
Yep, like I said, I was happy to see that this was the case (I looked up the code). Might just be simpler to set it on the server side though and avoid the warning. > > BTW, using start-delay means that there's a deficiency in the RA. > That attribute should be banned. > Right, I also meant to mention that in my reply. I'm still yet to see a valid use for start-delay, Ron: why is it being used here? _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: [email protected] http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
