On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ron Kerry <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/7/2010 8:00 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> 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? >> > > Probably because we did not know any better. The intent is that the monitor > operation not be scheduled to run until after the start operation has > completed.
Unless the start operation returns before the resource is fully started, this wont happen. > The start operation for most of our RAs verifies the resource > startup )most often by just calling the monitor function itself). In that case, it should be safe to remove the start-delay. > So we set > the monitor start-delay to the same value as the start timeout. We have > setting things up this way for quite some time and it has never caused us > problems before. I cannot remember the history behind initially setting > start-delay b ut it began way back when we were using straight heartbeat > based builds (since pretty much the SLES10 time frame). Should we not do > this? Preferably not. To be honest, I've no idea how it made it into the OCF spec in the first place. > > -- > > Ron Kerry [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
