On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Junko IKEDA <tsukishima...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Actually, it's desirable to "prevent Pacemaker shutdown" if there are >>> unmanaged resource, >> >> What about unmanaged /and/ failed? > > To be more specific, if there remains the resource which failed to > stop operation and went to the unmanaged status with its > on-fail="block" configuration, > it would be better to prevent Pacemaker from its shutdown.
I tend to agree. What I'm working on at the moment is correctly marking dependant actions as unrunnable and providing some reasonable feedback to users when the situation occurs. So from (one of) your examples, pe-input-3.bz2 now emits: warning: stage8: Cannot shut down node 'bl460g6a' because of dummy02: unmanaged, failed warning: stage8: Cannot shut down node 'bl460g6a' because of dummy01: blocked Does that help? I also need to correctly distinguish between your case and "i want pacemaker to exit and leave the services running". > Is it difficult to discriminate between "unmanaged(stop failure)" and > "unmanaged(operational)"? > well, stonith-enabled="false" should not be configured... > > Thanks, > Junko > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
