Re: [Linux-HA] hb_standby in 3.0.3
Dimitri Maziuk wrote: - doesn't seem to do anything other than print hb_standby[6096]: Going standby [all]. Neither does hb_takeover on the other node. They aren't even logging anything. Is this the expected behaviour (this is r1-style setup w/ haresources)? The winning answer is Standby mode only implemented when nice_failback on -- logged by 2.1.4, but not by 3.0.3. Also undocumented anywhere that I know of. Dima -- Dimitri Maziuk Programmer/sysadmin BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu ___ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
Re: [Linux-HA] hb_standby in 3.0.3
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:43:23AM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: Dimitri Maziuk wrote: - doesn't seem to do anything other than print hb_standby[6096]: Going standby [all]. Neither does hb_takeover on the other node. They aren't even logging anything. Is this the expected behaviour (this is r1-style setup w/ haresources)? The winning answer is Standby mode only implemented when nice_failback on -- logged by 2.1.4, but not by 3.0.3. Also undocumented anywhere that I know of. Uhm, no, that message is still there. The code in question has not been changed. Though nice_failback was deprecated in 2.x already, and has been replaced by auto_failback (on, off) instead. And regardless of whether auto_failback is on or off, nice_failback is considered to be on (it's always nice, wether it's on of off; only legacy is not nice ;- ... because that's confusing that nice name was deprecated a long time ago). As auto_failback unfortunately still defaults to legacy, I'd expect 3.0.3 to log just the same as 2.1.whatever. Unless of course you have auto_failback explicitly configured (which you should). Then standby would be expected to work. Wether it does what you want it to do depends on a number of other things, internal state tracking for one thing, but also on the quality of the used resource scripts, and on wether or not haresources is identical on both nodes. -- : Lars Ellenberg : LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability : DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria. ___ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
Re: [Linux-HA] hb_standby in 3.0.3
Lars Ellenberg wrote: Uhm, no, that message is still there. The code in question has not been changed. That may be, but it's not in my logs where it actually helps. (There seems to be nothing in /var/log/messages from 3.0.3 running in R1 mode; where 2.1.4 was annoyingly verbose at times, 3.0.3 is simply useless. Could be something logd-related I guess.) ... Unless of course you have auto_failback explicitly configured (which you should). Not according to the Required directives part of ha.cf manpage on the linux-ha website. Or auto_failback description on the same page. I vaguely recall some deprecated do not use R1 webpage that explained auto_failback, however, I can't find it anymore and check if it mentioned the relationship between hb_standby and auto_failback. My recollection is, it didn't. Dima -- Dimitri Maziuk Programmer/sysadmin BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu ___ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
[Linux-HA] hb_standby in 3.0.3
- doesn't seem to do anything other than print hb_standby[6096]: Going standby [all]. Neither does hb_takeover on the other node. They aren't even logging anything. Is this the expected behaviour (this is r1-style setup w/ haresources)? Dima -- Dimitri Maziuk Programmer/sysadmin BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu ___ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
