On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 01:51:24PM +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> I'll merge these two then.
>
> I guess that these should go to the Pacemaker repository, right?
Right, because they can only be used with Pacemaker.
Anything gene
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 01:51:24PM +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Michael Schwartzkopff
> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 10. Dezember 2009 13:19:48 schrieb Andrew Beekhof:
> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Michael Schwartzkopff
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >>
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Michael Schwartzkopff
wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 10. Dezember 2009 13:19:48 schrieb Andrew Beekhof:
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Michael Schwartzkopff
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I tried to start implementing SystemHealth agents. Please find attached
>> >
Am Donnerstag, 10. Dezember 2009 13:19:48 schrieb Andrew Beekhof:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Michael Schwartzkopff
>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried to start implementing SystemHealth agents. Please find attached
> > my first tries:
> >
> > HealthCPU: Measures the idle time of the system
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Michael Schwartzkopff
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to start implementing SystemHealth agents. Please find attached my
> first
> tries:
>
> HealthCPU: Measures the idle time of the system CPU.
> HealthSMART: Tells the CBI about the SMART status of all configured disks.
Hi,
I tried to start implementing SystemHealth agents. Please find attached my
first
tries:
HealthCPU: Measures the idle time of the system CPU.
HealthSMART: Tells the CBI about the SMART status of all configured disks.
Then I realized that there will be a lot of Health resources hanging aroun
Thanks!
Applied: http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/stable-1.0/rev/c8b2e3954f0f
Sorry for the delay.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Mark Hamzy wrote:
> Attached are the rest of the patches for the System Health feature. They add
> some testing, a resource script, a tool that listens to IPMI eve
and...@beekhof.net wrote on 06/30/2009 14:14:12 PM:
> I'd prefer sbin_PROGRAMS instead of halib_PROGRAMS for
> notifyServicelogEvent (the others are only installed there for legacy
> reasons).
> Also, since you're linking against crmcommon (which should be
> $(top_builddir)/lib/common/libcrmcommon
I'd prefer sbin_PROGRAMS instead of halib_PROGRAMS for
notifyServicelogEvent (the others are only installed there for legacy
reasons).
Also, since you're linking against crmcommon (which should be
$(top_builddir)/lib/common/libcrmcommon.la btw), you may want to use
the crm_err(), crm_debug() macros
and...@beekhof.net wrote on 06/09/2009 00:00:20 AM:
> You might find:
>
> + syslog (LOG_INFO, "Event id:"U64T"\n", event_id);
> + syslog (LOG_INFO, "Log timestamp: %s\n", ctime (&(event->
time_logged)));
> + syslog (LOG_INFO, "Event timestamp: %s\n", ctime (&(event->
time_event)));
You might find:
+ syslog (LOG_INFO, "Event id:"U64T"\n", event_id);
+ syslog (LOG_INFO, "Log timestamp: %s\n", ctime
(&(event->time_logged)));
+ syslog (LOG_INFO, "Event timestamp: %s\n", ctime
(&(event->time_event)));
to be quite noisy. Perhaps LOG_DEBUG and/or com
Okay, here is my first pass at the backend part needed for system health.
Comments/suggestions?
(See attached file: pacemaker.mark.patch)
Mark
Common Information Model/Web-Based Enterprise Management at
http://www.openpegasus.org/
Take a look at the Linux Omni Printer Driver Framework at
http:/
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Mark Hamzy wrote:
> I believe that general purpose solutions that follow standards should
> live in pacemaker.
Just returning to this for a moment, if it is a truly general purpose
solution, then it could be useful for those not running Pacemaker.
So if we're ta
ndrew: 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:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Mark Hamzy 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
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
Do you think this should live in pacemaker or with the RAs?
I'm inclined to think the latter but am open to persuasion.
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Mark Hamzy wrote:
> I would like to see a complete solution for system health shipped with
> pacemaker. Would you be opposed to including the ba
I would like to see a complete solution for system health shipped with
pacemaker. Would you be opposed to including the backend parts that
monitor system health into pacemaker such as daemons or command line
programs?
One of the ways to determine the health of a system is to listen to IPMI
even
On May 8, 2009, at 10:00 PM, Mark Hamzy wrote:
> Then I'd add
> - node-base-score
> Which cuts out half of the rsc_location constraints and seems like a
> generically useful concept.
> (One would probably look up this value and set node-weight during
> unpack_nodes() )
> I still debating whethe
and...@beekhof.net wrote on 05/08/2009 13:26:16 PM:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Mark Hamzy wrote:
>
> So what I think we need is the scores:
> - node-health-score-red (defaults to -INFINITY),
> - node-health-score-yellow (defaults to 0),
> - node-health-score-green (defaults to 0),,
>
>
This would be useful to me. We have a similar monitoring infrastructure and
have migration needs based upon node health.
-K
---
Karl Katzke
Systems Analyst II
TAMU - DRGS
>>> Andrew Beekhof 5/8/2009 6:26 AM >>>
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Mark Hamzy wrote:
> and...@beekhof.net
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Mark Hamzy wrote:
> and...@beekhof.net wrote on 05/07/2009 17:06:23 PM:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Mark Hamzy wrote:
>> >
>
>> This is where the disconnect is.
>> You seem convinced that everyone will want to sum them up the same way
>> you do, for every
and...@beekhof.net wrote on 05/07/2009 17:06:23 PM:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Mark Hamzy wrote:
> >
> This is where the disconnect is.
> You seem convinced that everyone will want to sum them up the same way
> you do, for every resource in the cluster.
> I'm not so sure.
Which is why I
23 matches
Mail list logo
