LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Double launching in heartbeat.

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Double launching in heartbeat.
From: Jean-Michel Bonnefond <bon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:07:59 -0000
Ok, I've upgrade heartbeat to version 1.0.4 and it fix the problem.

Thanks folks...

Jean-Michel.


Le Lundi 19 Avril 2004 18:00, Jean-Michel Bonnefond a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I've some strange behaviour for ldirectord when heartbeat launch services
> for a node, because it sometimes launch them twices.
>
> Here is my actual heartbeat configuration :
>
> node1 IPaddr::164.129.24.6/23/eth0 IPaddr::164.129.25.2/23/eth0
> IPaddr::164.129.25.3/23/eth0 IPaddr::164.129.33.49/28/eth1 trap-snmp
> ldirectord::ldirectord.cf
>
> I first had the problem when adding trap-snmp script which just send an
> snmp alert to the monitoring server. All the line node1 was launched two
> times, generating some errors in logs but also launching sometimes 2
> ldirectord daemons (as they seems to be launched just one after the other,
> and the first one don't have enough time to write a runpid lock file before
> the second is launched).
>
> I found that the problem appear because the trap-master script was first
> written whitout taking any argument (especially start/stop/status).
> Rewriting it for taking argument and return a 0 if start or stop is called
> or 1 if other values (including status) seems to correct the problem,
> however I do not see documentation talking about how to write additional
> scripts and what this script must answer. I've logged calls to start, stop
> and status, but can't affirm when they are exactly used by heartbeat and
> what heartbeat wait as answer.
>
> I've now a similar problem which launch twices the services. It appear only
> when node1 is starting and if node2 (which is the backup) is not up.
>
> Have you already constat this sort of problems, I've read the changelogs
> but don't find something similar and even google is not very helpfull on
> the subject.
>
> Thanks folks,
> Jean-Michel.


---------------------------------------------------
LINUX ? Y'a moins bien, mais c'est plus cher.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>