[Pacemaker] RFC: What part of the XML configuration do you hate the most?

Satomi TANIGUCHI taniguchis at intellilink.co.jp
Mon Dec 1 21:52:21 EST 2008

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for your implementation.
It works very well!

Now I consider how to clarify the way to failback.
When a resource with on-fail="standby" fails,
crm_mon shows that the node's status is "standby".
And when an user executes crm_standby -v on,
crm_mon shows the same status.
But the way to failback is different in each case.

In the first case, we have to restart
heartbeat service to failback.
And in the second, only crm_standby -v off is enough.

I consider that it is effective to divide the status which crm_mon shows
to avoid confusion.
What do you think about this?
I attached a patch, it is to make crm_mon show "standby (on-fail)"
in the first case.
It is for Pacemaker-1.0 2e9b56d80e38.
I'd like to hear your openion.

Best Regards,

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: modify_node_status_in_crm_mon.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2324 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20081202/93ed32e5/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: crm_mon.txt
URL: <http://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20081202/93ed32e5/attachment.txt>

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list