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
