|Summary:||rgmanager stops the resources in wrong order [RHCS5]|
|Product:||Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5||Reporter:||Lon Hohberger <lhh>|
|Component:||rgmanager||Assignee:||Lon Hohberger <lhh>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:||Cluster QE <mspqa-list>|
|Fixed In Version:||RHBA-2007-0580||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2007-11-07 16:45:40 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Lon Hohberger 2007-01-30 15:38:31 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #212121 +++ the cluster.conf is: ... <resources> ... <fs device="/dev/data/mt-daten" force_fsck="0" force_unmount="1" fstype="ext3" mountpoint="/exports.smb/mt-daten" name="mt-daten" options="acl" self_fence="1"/> <fs device="/dev/data/zMuell" force_fsck="0" force_unmount="1" fsid="17217" fsty pe="ext3" mountpoint="/exports.smb/mt-daten/zMuell" name="zMuell" options="acl" self_fence="1"/> ... </resources> <service autostart="1" domain="storage" exclusive="1" name="storage" recovery="restart"> ... <fs ref="mt-daten"/> <fs ref="zMuell"/> ... </service> ... if I stop the rgmanger he try to umount <fs ref="mt-daten"/> before he umounts <fs ref="zMuell"/> that is not posible. so he reboot the host. the correct behavior is to umount <fs ref="zMuell"/> before <fs ref="mt-daten"/> if he starts the rgmanager do the rigth thing: he mounts <fs ref="mt-daten"/> befor he umounts <fs ref="zMuell"/> -- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2006-10-25 11:58 EST -- The ordering is currently not guaranteed for a list of like-typed resources at this point. If you have an ordering dependency between two <fs> resources, the way to guarantee it (right now) is: <service> <fs name="foo"> <fs name="bar"/> </fs> </service> If you structure your service this way, bar will always be started after foo but stopped before foo. Now, the historical reason for this non-guarantee was the idea that it might be possible in the future to branch during starting/stopping of complex services - i.e. perform operations on multiple non-codependent resources in parallel. For example, consider a service where two non-codependent scripts are needed which, although not I/O or CPU intensive, each take five minutes to complete: <service> <script name="foo"/> <script name="bar"/> </service> We could start foo and bar simultaneously, saving just about 5 minutes. However, the actual, *practical* use of this is very limited. More importantly, however, is the fact that implementation of this functionality is very likely destabilizing. Additionally, it would very probably break existing start-ordering behaviors upon which, no doubt, people have already developed an expectency. Additionally, the practical uses of having implicit ordering guarantees vastly exceed the theoretical "performance gain" which might (at some point) have been attained by starting resources in parallel. Therefore, I think we should implement implicit ordering guarantees as described.
Comment 1 Lon Hohberger 2007-03-27 20:32:07 UTC
Patches in CVS.
Comment 2 Kiersten (Kerri) Anderson 2007-04-23 17:26:48 UTC
Fixing Product Name. Cluster Suite was integrated into the Enterprise Linux for version 5.0.
Comment 3 RHEL Product and Program Management 2007-04-25 21:53:15 UTC
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2007-11-07 16:45:40 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2007-0580.html