Mailing List Archive

1 2  View All
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
Hi Hideo-san!

On 06/15/2011 10:53 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Raoul,
>
> Thank you for comment.
>
>> please test the postfix ra from my repository:
>> https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix
>>
>> there is a "minor" issue regarding probes and a resulting double start,
>> which is left to be resolved. no other issues in my production
>> environment so far.
>>
>> so i'd be glad if you could give it a shot!
>
> All right.
>
> I confirm movement in postfix which you showed.

i'm sorry but i do not understand what you mean by that.
can you please rephrase that?


> Because our environment is RHEL, I report a test result on RHEL5 and RHEL6.
perfect!

please refetch one last time from
https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix

i think i got the probing issue fixed!

thanks,
raoul
--
____________________________________________________________________
DI (FH) Raoul Bhatia M.Sc. email. r.bhatia@ipax.at
Technischer Leiter

IPAX - Aloy Bhatia Hava OG web. http://www.ipax.at
Barawitzkagasse 10/2/2/11 email. office@ipax.at
1190 Wien tel. +43 1 3670030
FN 277995t HG Wien fax. +43 1 3670030 15
____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
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/
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
Hi Raoul,

I'm sorry.
I was weak in English, and it confused you.

> please refetch one last time from
> https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix
>
> i think i got the probing issue fixed!

I confirm movement and will inform it of a result tomorrow.

Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi

--- On Wed, 2011/6/15, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] <r.bhatia@ipax.at> wrote:

> Hi Hideo-san!
>
> On 06/15/2011 10:53 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > Hi Raoul,
> >
> > Thank you for comment.
> > 
> >> please test the postfix ra from my repository:
> >> https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix
> >>
> >> there is a "minor" issue regarding probes and a resulting double start,
> >> which is left to be resolved. no other issues in my production
> >> environment so far.
> >>
> >> so i'd be glad if you could give it a shot!
> >
> > All right.
> >
> > I confirm movement in postfix which you showed.
>
> i'm sorry but i do not understand what you mean by that.
> can you please rephrase that?
>
>
> > Because our environment is RHEL, I report a test result on RHEL5 and RHEL6.
> perfect!
>
> please refetch one last time from
> https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix
>
> i think i got the probing issue fixed!
>
> thanks,
> raoul
> --
> ____________________________________________________________________
> DI (FH) Raoul Bhatia M.Sc.          email.          r.bhatia@ipax.at
> Technischer Leiter
>
> IPAX - Aloy Bhatia Hava OG          web.          http://www.ipax.at
> Barawitzkagasse 10/2/2/11           email.            office@ipax.at
> 1190 Wien                           tel.               +43 1 3670030
> FN 277995t HG Wien                  fax.            +43 1 3670030 15
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________________
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/
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
Hi Raoul,

I confirmed movement of postfix in the next environment.

* RHEL5 - postfix 2.3.3
* RHEL6 - postfix 2.6.6

The postfix ra worked well.

However, my patch made a mistake.
I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
It is necessary to watch log of postfix in the details of the problem after all.

Therefore, I withdraw the patch of the part of postfix status.

diff -r 19c97e0021f0 postfix
--- a/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:45:53 2011 +0900
+++ b/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:46:01 2011 +0900
@@ -98,12 +98,8 @@
postfix_running() {
# run Postfix status if available
if ocf_is_true $status_support; then
- output=`$binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1`
- ret=$?
- if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then
- ocf_log err "Postfix status: '$output'." $ret
- fi
- return $ret
+ $binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1
+ return $?
fi

# manually check Postfix's pid


Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.


--- On Wed, 2011/6/15, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp <renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp> wrote:

> Hi Raoul,
>
> I'm sorry.
> I was weak in English, and it confused you.
>
> > please refetch one last time from
> > https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix
> >
> > i think i got the probing issue fixed!
>
> I confirm movement and will inform it of a result tomorrow.
>
> Best Regards,
> Hideo Yamauchi
>
> --- On Wed, 2011/6/15, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] <r.bhatia@ipax.at> wrote:
>
> > Hi Hideo-san!
> >
> > On 06/15/2011 10:53 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > > Hi Raoul,
> > >
> > > Thank you for comment.
> > > 
> > >> please test the postfix ra from my repository:
> > >> https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix
> > >>
> > >> there is a "minor" issue regarding probes and a resulting double start,
> > >> which is left to be resolved. no other issues in my production
> > >> environment so far.
> > >>
> > >> so i'd be glad if you could give it a shot!
> > >
> > > All right.
> > >
> > > I confirm movement in postfix which you showed.
> >
> > i'm sorry but i do not understand what you mean by that.
> > can you please rephrase that?
> >
> >
> > > Because our environment is RHEL, I report a test result on RHEL5 and RHEL6.
> > perfect!
> >
> > please refetch one last time from
> > https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix
> >
> > i think i got the probing issue fixed!
> >
> > thanks,
> > raoul
> > --
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > DI (FH) Raoul Bhatia M.Sc.          email.          r.bhatia@ipax.at
> > Technischer Leiter
> >
> > IPAX - Aloy Bhatia Hava OG          web.          http://www.ipax.at
> > Barawitzkagasse 10/2/2/11           email.            office@ipax.at
> > 1190 Wien                           tel.               +43 1 3670030
> > FN 277995t HG Wien                  fax.            +43 1 3670030 15
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> >
> _______________________________________________________
> 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/
>
_______________________________________________________
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/
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
On 06/16/2011 05:48 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> The postfix ra worked well.

thanks for testing my ra. i'll check the ra and will then issue a
pull request.

> However, my patch made a mistake.
> I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
> It is necessary to watch log of postfix in the details of the problem after all.
>
> Therefore, I withdraw the patch of the part of postfix status.
>
> diff -r 19c97e0021f0 postfix
> --- a/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:45:53 2011 +0900
> +++ b/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:46:01 2011 +0900
> @@ -98,12 +98,8 @@
> postfix_running() {
> # run Postfix status if available
> if ocf_is_true $status_support; then
> - output=`$binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1`
> - ret=$?
> - if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then
> - ocf_log err "Postfix status: '$output'." $ret
> - fi
> - return $ret
> + $binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1
> + return $?
> fi
>
> # manually check Postfix's pid

it's been a while since i looked into the code.

why do you want to issue "postfix status" if /usr/sbin/postfix
does not support this command?

thanks,
raoul
_______________________________________________________
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/
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
Hi Raoul,

> thanks for testing my ra. i'll check the ra and will then issue a
> pull request.

Okay.
We hope that a correction is included in the next release of the resource agent.

>
> > However, my patch made a mistake.
> > I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
> > It is necessary to watch log of postfix in the details of the problem after all.
> >
> > Therefore, I withdraw the patch of the part of postfix status.
> >
> > diff -r 19c97e0021f0 postfix
> > --- a/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:45:53 2011 +0900
> > +++ b/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:46:01 2011 +0900
> > @@ -98,12 +98,8 @@
> > postfix_running() {
> > # run Postfix status if available
> > if ocf_is_true $status_support; then
> > - output=`$binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1`
> > - ret=$?
> > - if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then
> > - ocf_log err "Postfix status: '$output'." $ret
> > - fi
> > - return $ret
> > + $binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1
> > + return $?
> > fi
> >
> > # manually check Postfix's pid
>
> it's been a while since i looked into the code.
>
> why do you want to issue "postfix status" if /usr/sbin/postfix
> does not support this command?

I thought that output could acquire the details of the problem of "postfix status" with a former patch.
And I thought the output of the details of the problem to be useful for an operator.
However, the details of the problem only were really reflected on log of postfix in the environment that I tried.

Therefore I want to withdraw the suggestion of the patch of this part.

Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.

--- On Wed, 2011/9/7, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] <r.bhatia@ipax.at> wrote:

> On 06/16/2011 05:48 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> > The postfix ra worked well.
>
> thanks for testing my ra. i'll check the ra and will then issue a
> pull request.
>
> > However, my patch made a mistake.
> > I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
> > It is necessary to watch log of postfix in the details of the problem after all.
> >
> > Therefore, I withdraw the patch of the part of postfix status.
> >
> > diff -r 19c97e0021f0 postfix
> > --- a/postfix   Thu Jun 16 21:45:53 2011 +0900
> > +++ b/postfix   Thu Jun 16 21:46:01 2011 +0900
> > @@ -98,12 +98,8 @@
> >   postfix_running() {
> >       # run Postfix status if available
> >       if ocf_is_true $status_support; then
> > -        output=`$binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1`
> > -        ret=$?
> > -        if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then
> > -            ocf_log err "Postfix status: '$output'." $ret
> > -        fi
> > -        return $ret
> > +        $binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1
> > +        return $?
> >       fi
> >
> >       # manually check Postfix's pid
>
> it's been a while since i looked into the code.
>
> why do you want to issue "postfix status" if /usr/sbin/postfix
> does not support this command?
>
> thanks,
> raoul
>
_______________________________________________________
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/
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
hi Hideo-san!

On 09/07/2011 01:50 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>>> However, my patch made a mistake.
>>> > > I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
>>> > > It is necessary to watch log of postfix in the details of the problem after all.
>>> > >
>>> > > Therefore, I withdraw the patch of the part of postfix status.
>>> > >
>>> > > diff -r 19c97e0021f0 postfix
>>> > > --- a/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:45:53 2011 +0900
>>> > > +++ b/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:46:01 2011 +0900
>>> > > @@ -98,12 +98,8 @@
>>> > > postfix_running() {
>>> > > # run Postfix status if available
>>> > > if ocf_is_true $status_support; then
>>> > > - output=`$binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1`
>>> > > - ret=$?
>>> > > - if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then
>>> > > - ocf_log err "Postfix status: '$output'." $ret
>>> > > - fi
>>> > > - return $ret
>>> > > + $binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1
>>> > > + return $?
>>> > > fi
>>> > >
>>> > > # manually check Postfix's pid
[...]
> I thought that output could acquire the details of the problem of "postfix status" with a former patch.
> And I thought the output of the details of the problem to be useful for an operator.
> However, the details of the problem only were really reflected on log of postfix in the environment that I tried.
>
> Therefore I want to withdraw the suggestion of the patch of this part.

does it hurt if we leave this patch in? i do not see any problem with
that code.

thanks,
raoul
_______________________________________________________
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/
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
Hi Raoul,

> does it hurt if we leave this patch in? i do not see any problem with
> that code.

Even if you do not apply a patch even if you apply this patch, there is not the big problem.
I am lacking in my explanation, and I'm sorry.

Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.


--- On Wed, 2011/9/7, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] <r.bhatia@ipax.at> wrote:

> hi Hideo-san!
>
> On 09/07/2011 01:50 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> >>> However, my patch made a mistake.
> >>> >  >  I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
> >>> >  >  It is necessary to watch log of postfix in the details of the problem after all.
> >>> >  >
> >>> >  >  Therefore, I withdraw the patch of the part of postfix status.
> >>> >  >
> >>> >  >  diff -r 19c97e0021f0 postfix
> >>> >  >  --- a/postfix   Thu Jun 16 21:45:53 2011 +0900
> >>> >  >  +++ b/postfix   Thu Jun 16 21:46:01 2011 +0900
> >>> >  >  @@ -98,12 +98,8 @@
> >>> >  >     postfix_running() {
> >>> >  >         # run Postfix status if available
> >>> >  >         if ocf_is_true $status_support; then
> >>> >  >  -        output=`$binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1`
> >>> >  >  -        ret=$?
> >>> >  >  -        if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then
> >>> >  >  -            ocf_log err "Postfix status: '$output'." $ret
> >>> >  >  -        fi
> >>> >  >  -        return $ret
> >>> >  >  +        $binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1
> >>> >  >  +        return $?
> >>> >  >         fi
> >>> >  >
> >>> >  >         # manually check Postfix's pid
> [...]
> > I thought that output could acquire the details of the problem of "postfix status" with a former patch.
> > And I thought the output of the details of the problem to be useful for an operator.
> > However, the details of the problem only were really reflected on log of postfix in the environment that I tried.
> >
> > Therefore I want to withdraw the suggestion of the patch of this part.
>
> does it hurt if we leave this patch in? i do not see any problem with
> that code.
>
> thanks,
> raoul
>
_______________________________________________________
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/
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
On 09/08/2011 04:49 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> do not apply a patch even if you apply this patch, there is not the big problem.
> I am lacking in my explanation, and I'm sorry.

ok. i just updated my pull request.

https://github.com/ClusterLabs/resource-agents/pull/20

dejan, can you please review and apply our patches?

thanks,
raoul
_______________________________________________________
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/
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
On 09/08/11 10:34, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> On 09/08/2011 04:49 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>> do not apply a patch even if you apply this patch, there is not the big problem.
>> I am lacking in my explanation, and I'm sorry.
>
> ok. i just updated my pull request.
>
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/resource-agents/pull/20
>
> dejan, can you please review and apply our patches?

Taking the liberty to step in for Dejan, I've merged and pushed your
changes. Thanks for your contribution!

Cheers,
Florian
Re: Postfix status [ In reply to ]
Hi Raoul,
Hi Florian,

Thank you for the change of the repository.

Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.

--- On Thu, 2011/9/8, Florian Haas <f.g.haas@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 09/08/11 10:34, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> > On 09/08/2011 04:49 AM, renayama19661014@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> >>   do not apply a patch even if you apply this patch, there is not the big problem.
> >> I am lacking in my explanation, and I'm sorry.
> >
> > ok. i just updated my pull request.
> >
> > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/resource-agents/pull/20
> >
> > dejan, can you please review and apply our patches?
>
> Taking the liberty to step in for Dejan, I've merged and pushed your
> changes. Thanks for your contribution!
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
>
_______________________________________________________
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/

1 2  View All