[ClusterLabs Developers] Proposed future feature: multiple notification scripts

Klaus Wenninger kwenning at redhat.com
Thu Dec 3 11:06:58 EST 2015

On 12/03/2015 04:45 PM, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> On 02/12/15 17:23 -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> This will be of interest to cluster front-end developers and anyone who
>> needs event notifications ...
>> One of the new features in Pacemaker 1.1.14 will be built-in
>> notifications of cluster events, as described by Andrew Beekhof on That
>> Cluster Guy blog:
>> http://blog.clusterlabs.org/blog/2015/reliable-notifications/
>> For a future version, we're considering extending that to allow multiple
>> notification scripts, each with multiple recipients. This would require
>> a significant change in the CIB. Instead of a simple cluster property,
>> our current idea is a new configuration section in the CIB, probably
>> along these lines:
>> <configuration>
>>    <!-- usual crm_config etc. here -->
>>    <!-- this is the new section -->
>>    <notifications>
>>       <!-- each script would be in a notify element -->
>>       <notify id="notify-1" path="/my/script.sh" timeout="30s">
>>          <recipient id="recipient-1" value="me at example.com" />
>>          <!-- etc. for multiple recipients -->
>>       </notify>
>>       <!-- etc. for multiple scripts -->
>>    </notifications>
>> </configuration>
>> The recipient values would be passed to the script as command-line
>> arguments (ex. "/my/script.sh me at example.com").
> Just thinking out loud, Pacemaker is well adapted to cope with
> asymmetric/heterogenous nodes (incl. user-assisted optimizations
> like with non-default "resource-discovery" property of a location
> contraint, for instance).
> Setting notifications universally for all nodes may be desired
> in some scenarios, but may not be optimal if nodes may diverge,
> or will for sure:
> (1) the script may not be distributed across all the nodes
>     - or (1b) it is located at the shared storage that will become
>       available later during cluster life cycle because it is
>       a subject of cluster service management as well
> (2) one intentionally wants to run the notification mechanism
>     on a subset of nodes
> Note also that once you have the responsibility to distribute the
> script on your own, you can use the same distribution mechanism to
> share your configuration for this script, as an alternative to using
> "value" attribute in the above proposal (and again, this way, you
> are free to have an asymmetric configuration).  There are tons
> of cases like that and one has to deal with that already (some RAs,
> file with secret for Corosync, ...).
> What I am up to is a proposal of an alternative/parallel mechanism
> that better fits the asymmetric (and asynchronous from cluster life
> cycle POV) use cases: old good drop-in files.  There would simply
> be a dedicated directory (say /usr/share/pacemaker/notify.d) where
> the software interested in notifications would craft it's own
> listener script (or a symlink thereof), script is then discovered
> by Pacemaker upon subsequent dir rescan or inotify event, done.
> --> no configuration needed (or is external to the CIB, or is
>     interspersed in a non-invasive way there), install and go
> --> it has local-only effect, equally as is local the installation
>     of the respective software utilizing notifications
>     (and as is local handling of the notifications!)
Why a dedicated directory so that you can't see in the cib that
some kind of notification is enabled?
If we make the drop-in-directory configurable via the cib alternatively
to the script or even in addition to it this would add transparency.
Or have the path setable with a default like your suggestion and an
of/off parameter...
>> For backward compatibility, the (brand new!) notification-agent and
>> notification-recipient cluster properties would be kept as deprecated
>> shortcuts for a single notify script and recipient.
>> Also for backward compatibility, the first recipient would be passed to
>> the script as the CRM_notify_recipient environment variable.
>> This proposal came about because the new notification capability has
>> turned out to be useful enough that people sometimes want to use it for
>> multiple purposes, e.g. email an administrator, and notify some software
>> that an event occurred.
> The proposal might be useful especially for the latter.
>> Trying to fit unrelated actions in one notification script (or a
>> script that calls multiple other scripts) has obvious pitfalls, so
>> this would make it easier on sysadmins.
>> Another advantage will be a configurable timeout (1.1.14 will have a
>> hardcoded 5-minute timeout for notification scripts).
> There may be catch-all configurable global default that would be
> applied also for drop-in files (replicating metadata framework
> in the notification scripts sounds like over-engineering).
>> The crm_attribute command and the various cluster front-ends would need
>> to be modified to handle the new configuration syntax.
>> This is all in the idea stage (development is still a ways off), so any
>> comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc. are welcome.
> In the same spirit, please comment on this associated idea.
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20151203/5ebaa5ed/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Developers mailing list