>>> Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> schrieb am 28.10.2021 um 17:28 in Nachricht <f94a60ebb33d4a25c137c19485638e13ab00090d.ca...@redhat.com>: > Hi all, > > I hope to release the first release candidate for Pacemaker 2.1.2 next > week. > > One of the most noticeable changes will be in failed action displays in > crm_mon. (This change will *not* show up if Pacemaker is built with the > ‑‑enable‑compat‑2.0 option.) > > An example from one of our regression tests, using the familiar > display: > > * ClusterIP:0_monitor_30000 on fc16‑builder 'not running' (7): > call=11, status='complete', last‑rc‑change='Wed Feb 22 11:04:34 2012', > queued=0ms, exec=20ms > > > As of 2.1.2, that display will still be available if crm_mon is given > the ‑‑show‑detail option, but by default it will now look like: > > * ClusterIP:0 30s‑interval monitor on fc16‑builder returned 'not > running' at Wed Feb 22 11:04:34 2012 after 20ms
Hi! that's ambiguous: 20ms after 11:04:34, or is 11:04:34 20ms after the result was reported (I think that is what the old format says) Probably too verbose: "... started at ... returned ... after 20ms" (it won't make a big difference for 20ms, but it might for 3000ms) Also, as clusters are faster than they were 15 years ago, what about "donating" fractional digits to the seconds? I wouldn't care to use a more ISO-like date format too (not much caring much about the days of week)? Maybe like "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS (%:z)"? > > > Here's another before‑and‑after example: > > * rsc1_monitor_10000 on sles11‑1 'not installed' (5): call=26, > status='Not installed', last‑rc‑change='Thu Aug 8 20:20:39 2013', > queued=0ms, exec=0ms > > * rsc1 10s‑interval monitor on sles11‑1 could not be executed (Not > installed) at Thu Aug 8 20:20:39 2013 What about "... be executed (reason: Not installed) ..." Yes whe _know_ it's the reason given in parens, but ... > > > Combined with exit reasons now displayed for internal errors, this > should hopefully make it easier to quickly see what's wrong (or at > least a decent pointer in the right direction). Also: What about option -J, --as-json? ;-) And it the structure of the XML output formally described somewhere? Regards, Ulrich > ‑‑ > Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> > > _______________________________________________ > Manage your subscription: > https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/ _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
