Summary: osaf: ensure takeover_requests have a lease [#2954]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2954
Peer Reviewer(s): Canh, Hans, Nagu
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2954
Base revision:
In CreateTakeoverRequest(), if the initial attempt fails,
then the takeover_request is created without a lease.
Furthermore, when the takeover_request result is set,
it is being set without a lease, and the takeover_request
is not automatically removed.
Add parameter to KeyValue::Set, and
add timeout parameter to set and set_if_prev
---
src/osaf/consensus/plugins/etcd.plugin | 20
src/osaf/consensus/plugins/sample.plugin | 16 ++--
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/osaf/consensus/plugins/etcd.plugin
A check to make sure the consensus service is writable (ie. the SC is in a
partition with quorum)
is present in avd_node_failover(). However, [#2918] means this function is not
always being called.
We need to move it.
---
src/amf/amfd/ndfsm.cc | 1 +
src/amf/amfd/ndproc.cc | 10 +++---
Summary: amfd: check consensus service is writable [#2957]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2957
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, Nagu, Minh
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2957
Base revision:
Hi Thuan
Ack with one comment (review only), I guess
avd_check_nodes_after_renit_imn() and should be
avd_check_nodes_after_reinit_imm()?
I'll change it and push on your behalf.
Thanks
Gary
On 12/11/18 7:25 pm, thuan.tran wrote:
- When AMFD got IMM BAD_HANDLE, it will try to finalize
Ok, thanks
-Nagu
-Original Message-
From: Minh Hon Chau [mailto:minh.c...@dektech.com.au]
Sent: 12 November 2018 17:51
To: Nagendra Kumar; 'Hans Nordeback'; 'Gary Lee'
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: Review Request for amf: Update PR [#2929]
Hi Nagu,
It's not the
Hi Nagu,
It's not the recovery in specification, I mean a new attribute.
Thanks,
Minh
On 12/11/18 9:53 pm, Nagendra Kumar wrote:
Hi Minh,
Thanks for your response.
In future, I think we can make it as configurable recovery method, so up to
applications to choose from.
You mean recommended
Hi Minh,
Thanks for your response.
>> In future, I think we can make it as configurable recovery method, so up to
>> applications to choose from.
You mean recommended recovery option? But how will it work?
Thanks
-Nagendra
High Availability Solutions
www.hasolutions.in
cont...@hasolutions.in
Hi Nagu,
Agree with you that we can do it for 2N. However the mutual active
workload has to be exclusively one at a time, so there may be some sort
of corruption to applications. But it also depends on how internal
application logics are implemented. So reboot the node is a choice of
safety
Hi Minh,
Ack from me.
Btw, why did you opt to remove assignments and restart admin operation for Nway
Act and No Red.
The same could have done in 2N by removing the assignments and restart and then
provide fresh assignments.
Thanks
-Nagendra
High Availability Solutions
www.hasolutions.in
Summary: amf: active amfd should check nodes after reinit with imm [#2949]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2949
Peer Reviewer(s): Gary, Minh
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2949
Base revision:
- When AMFD got IMM BAD_HANDLE, it will try to finalize current OI
and reinit new OI, it make some callbacks are removed without execution.
Try to dispatch OI before finalize it to reinit.
- After reinit OI, check node db to find out node which is not exist
in IMM (in case ccb apply delete node
13 matches
Mail list logo
