[Linux-HA] Heartbeat v2 CIB/API questions
smann at azteknetworks.net
Fri Dec 14 10:31:10 MST 2007
On Fri 12/14/2007 1:04 AM, Andrew Beekhof said:
>On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Scott Mann wrote:
>> On Thu 12/13/2007 3:09 PM, Andrew Beekhof said:
>>> On Dec 13, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Scott Mann wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm seeing about a 2.5minute delay between the time that
>>>>>>> starts and the time that the IP address comes up on eth0:0 (if it
>>>>>>> were 5minutes, I'd at least have a clue).
>>>>> i depends on your configured deadtime IIRC.
>>>>> what does ha.cf look like?
>>>> Here's my ha.cf:
>>>> logfacility local0
>>>> keepalive 2
>>>> deadtime 30
>>>> warntime 10
>>>> initdead 120
>>> 120 - that's 2 of your 2.5 minutes right there
>> Ah, interesting. So, in v2 (due to autojoin, perhaps?), initdead
>> causes a
>> delay in startup, whereas in v1 mode it doesn't. Very good to know.
>should do in both i'd have thought...
>when are you measuring from?
OK. More details.
First, in both cases I am running 2.1.2-24.1.
In the case of v1 mode, my ha.cf file looks identical to the one I sent,
except for the fact that I specify the two nodes (no autojoin) AND crm is off.
The haresources file has one line with the "preferred" node and the IP
address to manage.
Heartbeat is started with the init script (/etc/init.d/heartbeat) and then
another init script is run that starts my API application. In v1 mode, I
can start my API application as soon as the init script completes and everything
works as expected.
In v2 mode, I cannot start the API app as soon as the heartbeat init script completes
because I get a "Cannot signon" message because my app cannot connect to heartbeat.
Only after the election completes and the resource is "started" am I able to connect
to heartbeat via the API, which as you pointed out is delayed by initdead.
I am concluding that in v1 mode, since the nodes are known, there's no need to
delay initdead time. Whereas
in v2 mode with autojoin any, the initdead wait time is consumed because
there may be another node joining. Is that right? Perhaps there is a way
to control this with a quorum size in v2? Or is there a behavioral bug in v1?
Anyway, in both of these cases, both nodes come up at about the same time and
recognize each other very quickly. In other words, this isn't about testing
Thanks, again, for all your help. Let me know if you need anything else, I'll be
happy to return the favor.
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA at lists.linux-ha.org
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4342 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Linux-HA