[Pacemaker] questions about the booth

Yuusuke Iida iidayuus at intellilink.co.jp
Sun Mar 4 21:49:10 EST 2012

Hi, Jiaju

I thought about a plan to deal when a resource did not change in sites.
I think that I make daemon working outside booth.

This daemon watches it whether a resource can work in sites.
And it executes revoke command for booth when the state that a resource
cannot manage was confirmed.
booth catches revoke and thinks that I move a ticket to another site.

I think that the continuity of the resource is kept in this movement.

I analyze CIB and intend to perform the state confirmation of the
resource using score.

Is there any comment?

Best Regards,

(2012/02/24 19:38), Jiaju Zhang wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 11:10 +0900, Yuusuke Iida wrote:
>> Hi, Jiaju
>> I want to ask some questions about booth.
>> I confirm movement of booth by the following constitution.
>> node1, node2 - siteA(grant ticket)
>> node3, node4 - siteB
>> arbitrator
>> 1.
>> boothd which moved in node1 did failover by trouble to node2.
>> Though booth is rebooted then during the validity of the ticket, as for
>> the ticket, it is done failover to siteB.
>> As for me, boothd was started in node2 and hoped that grant was
>> maintained in siteA.
>> Will you examine a correction of the present behavior?
> Yes, what you wanted is also the expected behavior, it should be a bug.
>> 2.
>> When the resource that there is in conjunction with the ticket breaks
>> down in succession and was not able to start in site A, booth does nothing.
>> In this case I think that site B is not used effectively.
>> Does booth have the plan corresponding to such a problem?
> Yes. Thanks for reporting this! I'll take this in my bug list. For now,
> I have just set up an environment in my lab to do more integrated
> testing. There are some known issues founded, and the fixes will happen
> soon.
> Thanks a lot;)
> Jiaju


Yuusuke Iida
Mail: iidayuus at intellilink.co.jp

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list