[Linux-HA] Announcing! Release 2.1.1 of Linux-HA is now available!
alanr at unix.sh
Tue Jul 31 10:21:04 MDT 2007
Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Alan Robertson <alanr at unix.sh> wrote:
>> Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> On 7/24/07, Andrew Beekhof <beekhof at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/24/07, Alan Robertson <alanr at unix.sh> wrote:
>>>>> The Linux-HA team proudly announces feature and bug-fix release 2.1.1
>>>>> of the Linux-HA (aka "Heartbeat", aka "OpenHA") software.
>>>> Alan, can you please explain the following change-set which you made
>>>> just before the release:
>>>> I am struggling to think of a legitimate reason for most of these
>>>> messages to be changed from ERRORs to WARNINGs... even assuming they
>>>> are related to Bug #1657
>>>> In particular, I find the following change particularly concerning:
>>>> if self.rsh(node, self["StartCmd"]) != 0:
>>>> - self.log ("ERROR: Start command failed on node %s" %(node))
>>>> + self.log ("Warn: Start command failed on node %s" %(node))
>>> Still looking for some sort of response on this...
>>> With one exception, I would be most concerned if these changes were
>>> required to allow testing to pass.
>> Hadn't seen your reply yet. Sorry. I don't have time to read the main
>> list at the moment. I think I backed those changes out.
> The changes are still present in /dev
>> I don't
>> understand why expecting a message which always comes out if it succeeds
>> to be there is a problem - as this is how it originally worked. Each
>> time a message goes missing, it causes up to a 5 minute delay in the
>> tests - so it's good to track down if we are still having troubles.
> This is not my concern.
> My concern, as Manfred correctly pointed out, is that you changed a
> number of ERRORs to WARNings which would allow tests to appear to
> succeed when in fact they failed.
> This was highlighted in the change I quoted:
> if self.rsh(node, self["StartCmd"]) != 0:
> - self.log ("ERROR: Start command failed on node %s" %(node))
> + self.log ("Warn: Start command failed on node %s" %(node))
> StartCmd does not depend on any log messages and if it returns
> something other than 0 we most certainly have a big problem.
It was an ERROR only because I had changed it to an error. I'm pretty
sure that this change was putting it back the way it was. This is the
very thing that is needed for BSC to pass - that I'm fixing in another
bug that you've commented on.
When I wrote this code many years ago, this was originally an error. I
didn't research the change history for this, but knowing that this
little kludge is necessary for BSC to pass, my suspicion is that it was
you who made this a warning in order for BSC to pass on the CRM tests.
Sorry I had misunderstood the original request.
It was me who had changed the warnings to ERRORS before release, then I
reverted this change just before releasing, because it was necessary for
BasicSanityCheck to pass This reversion appears to be what you're
Here's the code from SLES10 SP1:
> andrew at 5809 if self.rsh(node, self["StartCmd"]) != 0:
> andrew at 5809 self.log ("Warn: Start command failed on node %s" %(node))
> zhenh at 4907 return None
I'd be happy to put back my good change, but it was you that made it a
warning, not me.
Alan Robertson <alanr at unix.sh>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
More information about the Linux-HA