On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, James Harper wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > Here is a somewhat simpler patch; does this work for you? Note that if > > you something like /etc/init.d/ceph status osd.123 where osd.123 isn't in > > ceph.conf then you get a status 1 instead of 3. But for the > > /etc/init.d/ceph status mds (or osd or mon) case where there are no > > daemons of a particular type it works. > > > > Perhaps the "does not exist" check should be also modified to return 3? > > > > Pacemaker will call the RA on every node to see what is running. On a node in an asymmetric cluster where ceph isn't configured, the RA just wants to know that it isn't running - it won't like an error being returned. For a node without even the RA script installed it would return not-installed, but I think that's okay too. > > Do you think maybe the 'ceph status' check and the RA check have conflicting requirements here? Maybe it would be better to leave the init.d script as-is and build the smarts into the RA script instead. Maybe, but I'm not completely following what the RA's requirements are here. If it's just a matter of the init script returning a different error code, though (as we've done so far), I don't see any problem. > Do idle mds's add any load to the system? Would it be useful to be able to have pacemaker bring up mds's on any two nodes so you always have exactly two running, without actually tying them to specific nodes? They don't add much load when they are standby, but they will if they end up taking over. There is also no reason to say 'exactly two' IMO. If you have a symmetric cluster I would be more inclined to run one on every node for simplicity, recognizing that the active one will use some resources. sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
