[Pacemaker] RFC: Better error reporting for RAs.

Lars Marowsky-Bree lmb at suse.de
Mon Aug 3 05:31:59 EDT 2009

On 2009-08-03T10:44:27, Dominik Klein <dk at in-telegence.net> wrote:

> > Though I don't see the point, grepping for the resource id is usually
> > just as effective.
> I totally agree here. I have helped quite a few people understand their
> problems on IRC and grepping the resource id usually works well.

The first part of the suggestion was to only make this grepping a bit
easier. I _know_ it can be done today, but I also wouldn't mind
improving it.

> > I'd suggest focusing on improving the error logging that most RAs have
> > rather than adding yet more mechanisms for achieving the same thing.
> Makes sense to me and I think it would also be less work than
> implementing a new interface and modifying each RA to use it.

That's an exaggeration. You don't have to modify each RA, only those
that want to be more verbose in this fashion - it's a
backwards-compatible extension and nothing would change for those RAs
which don't care.

The CIB would grow by ~80 bytes per resource failure or so, which
strikes me as fairly limited.

Users monitoring the cluster are not always the same people who are
capable of parsing/grepping the logs. Providing them with a better clue
as to what is wrong would be a plus.

Of _course_ it would be less work for us on the development side. The
point is to reduce the support and maintenance workload.


Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list