Re: [Linux-HA] hb_standby in 3.0.3

2010-12-21 Thread Dimitri Maziuk
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

2010-12-21 Thread Lars Ellenberg
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and has been replaced by auto_failback (on, off) instead.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

2010-12-21 Thread Dimitri Maziuk
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