On 10 Jun 2014, at 7:52 pm, Riccardo Murri <riccardo.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, all,
>
> sorry for this late reply -- currently I am only able to work on this
> issue very "part-time-ly"...
>
> On 2 June 2014 13:34, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Jun 2014, at 7:05 pm, Riccardo Murri <riccardo.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 May 2014 02:38, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29 May 2014, at 9:19 pm, Riccardo Murri <riccardo.mu...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> - or rather does the `ping` RA trigger failure events when even one of
>>>>> the nodes cannot be pinged?
>>>>
>>>> both. it always triggers events when something changes and its up
>>>> to the policy engine to look at your constraints and decide if
>>>> things should be moved.
>>>
>>> Would the following be the correct configuration snippet to have
>>> pacemaker ignore occasional ping failures and only react when *no*
>>> hosts can be pinged?
>>>
>>> primitive ping ocf:pacemaker:ping \
>>> params name=ping dampen=5s multiplier=10 host_list="..." \
>>> op start timeout=120 \
>>> op monitor timeout=60 interval=10 on-fail=ignore
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Not really. monitor failures are different from "i could only reach N out
>> of M hosts"
>> The rule below is the correct part, but we'll still poke the PE to be sure
>> everything is ok.
>>>
>>> clone ping_clone ping \
>>> meta globally-unique=false clone-node-max=1
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> location mgt-location mgt \
>>> rule -INFINITY: not_defined ping or ping number:lte 0
>>>
>
> Concerning "monitor failures are different": we have only seen a
> migration to happen as a result of a `ping_monitor_XXX` failure. Does
> it trigger the `rule -INF: not_defined ping` part in the PE?
yes. if you want it to move to the most connected host, you'd want something
like example 9.5 on:
http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1/html/Pacemaker_Explained/_tell_pacemaker_how_to_interpret_the_connectivity_data.html
> (The
> rules above are the rules we run in actual pacemaker setup, minus the
> `on-fail=ignore` which we do not have yet.)
>
> Concerning "we'll still poke the PE to be sure everything is ok."
> Does this mean that every change in the ping score triggers a check on
> part of the PE?
yes
> And the relevant rules would be those that evaluate
> `ping number`?
yes
>
> Thanks,
> Riccardo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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
