[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-ha-dev
Subject:    Re: [Linux-ha-dev] CTS testing result, Oct. 29
From:       Guochun Shi <gshi () ncsa ! uiuc ! edu>
Date:       2005-10-31 20:18:46
Message-ID: 43667C26.5090204 () ncsa ! uiuc ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

Alan Robertson wrote:

> Guochun Shi wrote:
>
>> Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/05, Guochun Shi <gshi@ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>> Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>>> Oct 29 02:37:53 Running test Stonithd (hadev1)  [887]
>>>>>> Oct 29 02:41:25 BadNews: Oct 29 02:38:21 hadev2 pengine: [10864]: 
>>>>>> ERROR:
>>>>>> mask(unpack.c:determine_online_status): Node hadev1 is 
>>>>>> un-expectedly down
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>> this message has been downgraded to a warning.  i believe Alan was
>>>>> asking for this around the time of the last release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>> shouldn't a node un-expectly down be an error?
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>> i think alan's point is that we can recover it (thats our main purpose
>>> afterall) - so WARN: is more appropriate.
>>>  
>>>
>> I have the feeling of deja vu. I probably asked the question before :)
>>
>> Anyway, CTS should catch the warning then.
>
>
> Why?
>
> It just means a node crashed.  We have several tests that do that :-). 
> It's pretty normal behavior in the tests.
>
>
ok, you are right.
I thought this message is from CTS, i.e. CTS think this node should be up.
I had it confused with some message like
"CTS: node xyz should be up but it is down"

-Guochun





_______________________________________________________
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/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]