Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 05/29/2011 01:57 AM, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > DRBD is running with heartbeat in this case, and you're right that the drbd > init script probably shouldn't be called this way. Although to quote from > the INIT INFO section of the script: > > # X-Start-Before: heartbeat corosync > # X-Stop-After: heartbeat corosync > > Does "X-Start-Before" mean start this before these, or start these before > this? Ubuntu as a Debian should obey this LSB stuff. But Careful - you're agitating the Debian crowd ;-) I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Ubuntu does these things in the exact Debian way. > http://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts doesn't specify the syntax in much > detail. The drbd init.d does have: > > # Required-Start: $local_fs $network $syslog > > which pretty clearly should be telling the system not to start drbd before > the network is up. But it's trying anyway. Although that Debian page says: > > $network low level networking (ethernet card; may imply PCMCIA running) > > So "low level networking" might mean something less than actually having > networking running? It could be that this is an instance of tripping over > Ubuntu's "upstart" transitional stuff. Much as I respect Ubuntu Server > (I've run Slack, Red Hat, Gentoo, Debian, still run CentOS - and prefer > Ubuntu), upstart is a PITA compared to proper init scripts. It all depends on the way you're booting. A concurrent boot will honour this. A symlink that was put into /etc/rcX.d by update-rc.d (or insserv) should have been OK, too. Of course, if someone messed with the start order, that's bunk now. I don't see the big problem. You have a KVM connected? Why don't you boot into runlevel 1 and put DRBD late in the boot order? (Please tell me you can power down from remote.) Also, what would (in your eyes) be wrong about configuring a wait timeout and then just leave DRBD "running"? It sure won't break anything. HTH, Felix