RE: Failover in copy...

[Christian Pearce]

Wow, missed that...  How cool.

Checking copy from 192.168.1.1:/var/tmp/txt to /var/tmp/txt
Connect to 192.168.1.1 = 192.168.1.1 on port cfengine
cfengine:: Couldn't open a socket
cfengine:: Unable to establish connection with 192.168.1.1 (failover)
Checking copy from 192.168.1.2:/var/tmp/txt to /var/tmp/txt
Connect to 192.168.1.2 = 192.168.1.2 on port cfengine
cfengine:: Couldn't open a socket
cfengine:: Unable to establish connection with 192.168.1.2 (failover)
 
cfengine:: Executing script /bin/echo failed...(timeout=0,uid=-1,gid=-1)
(Setting umask to 77)
cfengine::/bin/echo faile: failed
cfengine:: Finished script /bin/echo failed
control:
                                                                                
    actionsequence = ( copy shellcommands )
                                                                                
    portal_ip = ( "192.168.1.1:192.168.1.2" )
                                                                                
copy:
    /var/tmp/txt
        dest=/var/tmp/txt
        server=$(portal_ip)
        failover=failure
                                                                                
shellcommands:
                                                                                
    failure::
        "/bin/echo failed"
                                                                                
    !failure::
        "/bin/echo success"



On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 14:21, Wheeler, John wrote:
> think this is in 2.1.7?
> 
> http://www.cfengine.org/src-mirror/ChangeLog.txt
> 
> search for server.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: help-cfengine-bounces+jwheeler=eb.com@gnu.org
> [mailto:help-cfengine-
> > bounces+jwheeler=eb.com@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Chip Seraphine
> > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:34 PM
> > To: Christian Pearce; help-cfengine@gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: Failover in copy...
> > 
> > On Thursday 16 September 2004 11:59, Christian Pearce wrote:
> > > I know I talked about this before.  But isn't this just the inverse
> of
> > > define?  If the copy failed the define class wouldn't be set and the
> > > failover would.  If the copy was successful just the opposite.
> Isn't
> > > this redundant?  All you have to do is ! the class and you have the
> > > other condition.  Is there something about failover that I am
> missing?
> > 
> > Order of operations.  Does "!copygood" mean that the copy in question
> has
> > not
> > run yet, or that it failed?
> > 
> > > I think it might be of interest to have it try a second IP address.
> So
> > > the server would take comma separated values.
> > 
> > That would be extremely, massively cool.  I would recommend following
> the
> > iterator conventions rather than introducing a new one, however.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Chip Seraphine
> > Unix Administrator
> > TradeLink, LLC
> > 312-264-2048
> > chip@trdlnk.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Help-cfengine mailing list
> > Help-cfengine@gnu.org
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
-- 
Christian Pearce
http://www.commnav.com
http://www.perfectorder.com