gt;>>>>>> Was thinking of doing a small
> test
>>> implementation going
>>>>>>>>>>> a little in the direction Lars
>> Ellenberg
>>> had been
>>>>>> pointing
>>>&g
- add an API (via DBus or libqb -
> favoring
>> libqb atm) to
>>>>> sbd
>>>>>>>>>> an application can use to create a
>> watchdog within sbd
>>>>>>>>> Why has it to be done within sbd?
>>&g
To: users@clusterlabs.org;
renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
Cc:
Date: 2016/10/5, Wed 23:08
Subject: Antw: Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: When
the DC
crmd is
frozen,
cluster decisions are delayed infinitely
<renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp>
schrieb am
21.09
er - using the new API
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - this of course creates sbd dependency within pacemaker
> so
>>>>>> that it would make sense to offer a simpler and
>> self-contained
>>>>>> implementation within pacemake
lementation within pacemaker as an alternative
>>>> I think the watchdog interface is so simple that you don't
> need a relay
>>> for it. The only limit I can imagine is the number of watchdogs
> available of
>>> some specific hardware.
>>> That is the point ;-)
>
the dependency
>>>>within a non-compulsory pacemaker-rpm so that
>>>>we can offer an alternative that doesn't use sbd
>>>>at maybe the cost of being less reliable or one
>>>>that owns a hardware-watchdog by itself for systems
>
ds,
>> Hideo Yamauchi.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Ulrich Windl <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
>>> To: users@clusterlabs.org; renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
>>> Cc:
>>> Date: 2016/10/5, Wed 23:08
>>&
