On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:02 PM, James Guthrie <j...@open.ch> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Thanks for looking into this. We have since decided not to perform a failover > on the failure of one of the sub-* resources for operational reasons. As a > result, I can't reliably test if this issue is actually fixed in the current > HEAD. (Speaking of which, do you have a date set yet for 1.1.9?) > > On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > >> I'm still very confused about why you're using master/slave though. > > The reason I went with master-slave was that we want the init script started > on the "master" host and stopped on the "slave".
You get those semantics from a normal primitive resource. > With a master-slave I have a monitor operation on the slave ensuring that the > resource will be stopped on the slave if it were to be started manually > (something I can't be sure wouldn't happen). AFAIK this wouldn't be the case > with a "standard" resource. I think 1.1.8 allowed for operations with role=Stopped which would do this for the highly paranoid :-) > > Regards, > James > > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
