Hi Hideo-san,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:43:00PM +0900, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Dejan,
>
> Thank you for comments.
>
>
> > Hi Hideo-san,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:18:07AM +0900, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > > Hi Dejan,
> > >
> > > Thank you for comments.
> > >
> > > > > I change validate-all and want to change it to always carry out validate-all.
> > > > > I abolish vgck/vgdisplay carried out in validate-all and intend to make only the check of the parameter simply.
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it that validate-all may be really necessary only in the
> > > > start action? The repeating monitor is scheduled only after a
> > > > successful start.
> > >
> > > It may be surely necessary as you say.
> > > However, I think validate-all to unify it so that it is always carried out.
> >
> > But why?
>
> There is the resource to carry out validate-all every time a lot.
> We wish it becomes LVM in the same way.
That's not a good reason. Testing if binaries exist on every
monitor operation really doesn't make much sense. Why would you
expect programs to start disappearing? And if they do, we may
have a much more serious problem to deal with.
Cheers,
Dejan
> > > How about what the check of vgck/vgdisplay chooses it in a parameter and can carry out?
> >
> > Again, why? It doesn't make any difference for a running
> > resource? We may do this before the start operation, of course.
>
> My correction is different from original LVM in big validate-all.
>
> There were many mistakes to my patch.
> And I think about a patch again and send it.
>
> Best Regards,
> Hideo Yamauchi.
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dejan
> >
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Hideo Yamauchi.
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 2012/4/6, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejan@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Hideo-san,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 10:50:39AM +0900, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > > > > Hi Dejan,
> > > > >
> > > > > I change validate-all and want to change it to always carry out validate-all.
> > > > > I abolish vgck/vgdisplay carried out in validate-all and intend to make only the check of the parameter simply.
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it that validate-all may be really necessary only in the
> > > > start action? The repeating monitor is scheduled only after a
> > > > successful start.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Dejan
> > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Hideo Yamauchi.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Fri, 2012/4/6, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejan@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Hideo-san,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:32:05AM +0900, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Dejan,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree to your patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the reply.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, the monitor was shamelessly stolen from Vladislav.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Applied.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ocft test passed (after some struggle and eventually fixing the
> > > > > > ocft source).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dejan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > Hideo Yamauchi.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Thu, 2012/4/5, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejan@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is a proposed set of two patches which would eliminate use
> > > > > > > > of LVM commands in the monitor path. We already discussed the
> > > > > > > > issue elsewhere and I don't see any point in keeping
> > > > > > > > vgck/vgdisplay given that they don't result in better monitoring
> > > > > > > > under normal circumstances. And if the circumstances are such
> > > > > > > > that the new monitoring fails, I think that there'll be many
> > > > > > > > more problems on the node than a failed volume group.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dejan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________________
> > > > > > > Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> > > > > > > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> > > > > > _______________________________________________________
> > > > > > Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
> > > > > > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> > > > > > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________________
> > > > > Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
> > > > > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> > > > > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________________
> > > Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
> > > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
> > > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
> >
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page:
http://linux-ha.org/
LVM.vgck.patch (2.54 KB)
