Jon,
I cannot follow much of this. I wouldn't know an MSCS Cluster from my
sainted aunt, nor what the failover process was supposed to be, complete or
not.
But I do know a little something about the StateCorrelation Engine (SCE)
and how it plays a role in events sent from TEC, and even with that, I
can't for the life follow what you mean by,
> Doesn't look like SCE under NV->TEC adapter did anything to the events
sent over to TEC.
To have the SCE do something other than what it ships with by default,
you'd have to write your own rules in xml, add them to the nvsbcrule.xml
file, and unless the action you wanted was already defined in a current jar
file in the ZCE_CLASSPATH, which lists those jars from /usr/OV/jars/ that
provide functions for the SCE to execute, you'd have to provide a new jar
as well, containing java code you wrote to do the job. Is that what you
are doing? Not one customer in 500 is that ambitious, I think. We've
never actually documented in NetView how you would do anything like that,
since TEC owns the code and the APIs.
So let's take a step back and you can start at the beginning about what's
going on.
What NetView platform? What version and release?
What events are we talking about and how were they supposed to look when
they got to TEC? What do you get instead?
James Shanks
Level 3 Support for Tivoli NetView for UNIX and Windows
Tivoli Software / IBM Software Group
"Jon Austin"
<AUSTINJ@email.ch
op.edu> To
Sent by: <nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com>
owner-nv-l@lists. cc
us.ibm.com
Subject
[nv-l] [NV-L]: Status Polling
03/13/2006 11:14 Public Addresses on MSCS Clusters
AM
Please respond to
nv-l@lists.us.ibm
.com
I'm building up a new (greenfield) NV environment and looking toward
implementing as much 'automated' status polling as possible.
NV is forwarding to TEC using the out-of-the-box TEC_ITS ruleset,
rules, and such.
For our Microsoft Clusters, I'm being asked by our architect to solve
the problem of the unsuccessful cluster failover.
In this scenario, let's take a simple two-node, active-passive
configuration. Both nodes with proper SNMP configuration,
and for fun, status polling is done via SNMP rather than ICMP.
In the example, MSCS doesn't completely fail over to the a passive
node
for some reason, but both devices are still
online via their primary interfaces, and can respond to SNMP GETs. In
the scenario, the active has dropped it's cluster IP address, but
it hasn't been assigned onto the passive node.
In testing using nmdemandpoll to speed up the polling interval, I've
seen for a successful failover, the TEC_ITS_INTERFACE_STATUS
events come through from NV on the primary node for the interface
deletions, but no events from NV on the passive node for inteface
additions.
An ovtopodump does show the interface object moved from active to
passive. trapd.log shows the deletes and adds.
Doesn't look like SCE under NV->TEC adapter did anything to the events
sent over to TEC.
Anyone care to share their thoughts on solving this particular
scenario
that doesn't make it harder to maintain NV.??
Jon Austin
Tivoli/Unix Administrator
Information Systems
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
|