[Pacemaker] Fixed! - Re: Problem with dual-PDU fencing node with redundant PSUs

Vladislav Bogdanov bubble at hoster-ok.com
Mon Jul 1 12:19:44 UTC 2013


01.07.2013 15:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> 
> On 01/07/2013, at 10:06 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com> wrote:
> 
>> 01.07.2013 14:53, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2013, at 9:45 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in the first place.
>>>>>>> If it were actually useful, I suspect more than two/three people would have asked for it in the last decade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just silently waiting for this to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rarely a good plan.
>>>>
>>>> ok, then here is my +1 :)
>>>>
>>>>> Better to make my life so miserable that implementing it seems like a vacation in comparison :)
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I use different fencing scheme (and plan to use even more
>>>>>> different one), that is very nice fall-back path for me. And I strongly
>>>>>> prefer all complexities like reboot -> off-off-on-on to be hidden from
>>>>>> the configuration. Naturally, that is task for the entity which has
>>>>>> whole picture of what to do - stonithd. Just my 'IMHO'.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the tides of public opinion change, then yes, stonithd is the place.
>>>>
>>>> It would be natural.
>>>>
>>>>> But I can't justify the effort for only a handful of deployments.
>>>>
>>>> I do not use that only because I never used rgmanager, and that setup
>>>> was not supported in pacemaker. If it was, I'd build my clusters in a
>>>> different way, without need to reinvent a wheel. So, probably you may
>>>> look from the other side - nobody uses unimplemented features but
>>>> willing to use them once implemented.
>>>
>>> Yes, but people around here also tend to be quite vocal when they think something is missing.
>>> More so if its something critical.
>>
>> ok, that is not critical (for me), there are always ways to work around.
>> F.e. I plan (and I already did all hardware modifications, the only
>> remaining part is an agent) to sit on reset lines (like rcd_serial does)
>> with quido device from papouch (www.papouch.com) as a second-level
>> fencing mech in addition to ipmi.
>>
>> But, that would be nice to have feature if reboot command translation to
>> multiple devices is implemented. And I would use it.
> 
> Well its possible right now, it "just" not super pretty to configure.

I already set "Important" IMAP flag on that message and really willing
to copy that into my internal wiki ;)

> You should be able to leave out the location constraints though, that reduces the size a lot.

Yep, that requires a bit of thinking still.

> 
> And if people start using it, then we might look at simplifying it.

May be it's worth to have anonymous poll at clusterlabs.org for that?





More information about the Pacemaker mailing list