** Changed in: watchdog (Debian)
Status: Unknown => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1891801
Title:
watchdog should start after basic.target
To manage notifications
Thanks, hope for a update soon.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1891801
Title:
watchdog should start after basic.target
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Hello Christoph, yep, because of that dependency loop and because it
kind of makes sense to have the watchdog starting earlier, I opened a
Debian bug about this issue asking maintainer opinion. He is also the
upstream maintainer so that will help us a bit.
I'm linking the upstream issue and will
My setup looks like this:
- two nodes cluster with drbd
- 3rd node qdevice (net)
You`re right, sbd should start before watchdog.
This was also my first attempt as you suggested above to add
"After=watchdog.service".
But this creates an order cycle in pacemaker:
---
Aug 18 06:36:29 drbd01
For sbd:
[Unit]
Description=Shared-storage based fencing daemon
Documentation=man:sbd(8)
Before=pacemaker.service
Before=dlm.service
After=systemd-modules-load.service iscsi.service
PartOf=corosync.service
RefuseManualStop=true
RefuseManualStart=true
...
I could add:
After=watchdog.service
so
Hello Christoph,
Why do you think that ? Could you be more prolix about this change and
what are the pros and cons of making this change ? An example on how
you're setting up your cluster using sbd and watchdog would be also good
to corroborate your request.
From:
