16.05.2013 02:46, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > On 15/05/2013, at 6:44 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: > >> 15.05.2013 11:18, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>> >>> On 15/05/2013, at 5:31 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 15.05.2013 10:25, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 15/05/2013, at 3:50 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 15.05.2013 08:23, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/05/2013, at 3:11 PM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The guest located it to the shared disk. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is on the shared disk? The whole OS or app-specific data (i.e. >>>>>>>>> nothing pacemaker needs directly)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shared disk has all the OS and the all data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh. I can imagine that being problematic. >>>>>>> Pacemaker really isn't designed to function without disk access. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You might be able to get away with it if you turn off saving PE files >>>>>>> to disk though. >>>>>> >>>>>> I store CIB and PE files to tmpfs, and sync them to remote storage >>>>>> (CIFS) with lsyncd level 1 config (I may share it on request). It copies >>>>>> critical data like cib.xml, and moves everything else, symlinking it to >>>>>> original place. The same technique may apply here, but with local fs >>>>>> instead of cifs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Btw, the following patch is needed for that, otherwise pacemaker >>>>>> overwrites remote files instead of creating new ones on tmpfs: >>>>>> >>>>>> --- a/lib/common/xml.c 2011-02-11 11:42:37.000000000 +0100 >>>>>> +++ b/lib/common/xml.c 2011-02-24 15:07:48.541870829 +0100 >>>>>> @@ -529,6 +529,8 @@ write_file(const char *string, const char *filename) >>>>>> return -1; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> + unlink(filename); >>>>> >>>>> Seems like it should be safe to include for normal operation. >>>> >>>> Exactly. >>> >>> Small flaw in that logic... write_file() is not used anywhere. >> >> Heh, thanks for spotting this. >> >> I recall write_file() was used for pengine, but some other function for >> CIB. You probably optimized that but forgot to remove unused function, >> that's why I was sure patch is still valid. And I did tests (CIFS >> storage outage simulation) only after initial patch, but not last years, >> that's why I didn't notice the regression - storage uses pacemaker too ;) . >> >> This should go to write_xml_file() (And probably to other places just >> before fopen(..., "w"), f.e. series). > > I've consolidated the code, however adding the unlink() would break things > for anyone intentionally symlinking cib.xml from somewhere else (like a git > repo). > So I'm not so sure I should make the unlink() change :(
Agree. I originally made it specific to pengine files. What do you prefer, simple wrapper in xml.c (f.e. unlink_and_write_xml_file()) or just add unlink() call to pengine before it calls write_xml_file()? _______________________________________________ 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
