Open HideoYamauchi opened 3 years ago
It should. So seems like we need to update it ro use -N/-R or combination of them to work optimally in this case: https://access.redhat.com/discussions/5474551
Hi Oyvind,
Thanks!
Are other fence_agents okay? I think it is necessary to look comprehensively.
Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi.
If you run grep -e "run_command" -e "pexpect" agents/*/*.py
you should get most of the agents that might have similar issues if the tool they use uses internal timeout.
Hi Oyvind,
If you run
grep -e "run_command" -e "pexpect" agents/*/*.py
you should get most of the agents that might have similar issues if the tool they use uses internal timeout.
Okay!
Let's check all fence_agents once.
However, if there are a wide variety of external commands to be executed, it will be very troublesome to deal with and confirm. I think it is desirable to make it so that the timeout can be ignored only on the main body side of fence_agent, but I do not know if it is possible.
Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi.
Hi All,
If disable-timeout is enabled, you should get a Pacemaker timeout, but it actually works differently depending on the fence_agent. This may enable or disable the Pacemaker pcmk_xxxx_retries parameter, depending on the fence_agent. Originally, shouldn't all failures time out if disable-timeout is enabled?
Here are examples of fence_ipmitool and fence_vmware_rest, with the differences we're talking about in Bugzilla below.
I haven't checked all the fence_agents, but it seems that there are many fence_agents that make a difference.
Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi.