I actually do start pingd on just one node and fail it over. It won't work on my slave node because the slave node does not have Internet access, only local cluster access. If it ran all the time on that node, it would always show Internet connectivity down. Thus, I must agree with Andrew: Pacemaker does seem to be the right place to put it.
-Eliot -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Beekhof [mailto:and...@beekhof.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:37 AM To: pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] System Health backend part On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Mark Hamzy <ha...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > and...@beekhof.net wrote on 06/02/2009 16:46:55 PM: > >> Do you think this should live in pacemaker or with the RAs? >> I'm inclined to think the latter but am open to persuasion. > > Well, I think that these files do not fit within the Resource > Agent model. While you could theoretically start and stop them, > they are tied to a system. You do not fail them over to another > system based on a score. Thats fine, neither do we do that for pingd, dlm, o2cb, ocfs2 and many more. The only important thing is whether we should start them and keep them running. Is that the case? Of course if the daemons need pacemaker libraries to be built, then Pacemaker is the right place to put them. > Each system in a cluster will be running those daemons. Same response as above. -- Andrew _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and should be destroyed and/or returned if you are not the intended and proper recipient. _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
