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

[Digimer]

On 07/01/2013 01:43 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 12:59 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>> On 2013-07-01T12:58:25, Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> Pacemaker can monitor the fencing device if you configure a monitor
>>>> action for it, for exactly this reason.
>>> My *very* initial testing of op monitor="30" didn't detect the failure
>>> or recovery of the fence device. I may very well have screwed something
>>> up though... I still have a lot to learn.
>>
>> The check should call out to the agent with a status request. I, on the
>> other hand, am not familiar with how that works for fence_* agents,
>> since I've so far only worked with the cluster-glue based agents.
>>
>>> I protect against this scenario by using two switches and plugging IPMI
>>> into the first switch and the PDUs into the second switch. All nodes use
>>> bonded links with a leg in either switch. So the failure of an entire
>>> switch will not cause an interruption or the loss of fencing capabilities.
>>
>> Ah, yes, that'd work.
>>
>> Though I admit this whole conversation just convinces me more and more
>> about prefering to use sbd fencing. ;-) I wonder if you could give it a
>> thought?
>>
>> It does lack a fence_sbd wrapper (if you want to use it on RHEL w/o the
>> rest), but maybe someone feels like contributing one ;-)
> 
> I only use fence_*, so the wrapper would need to be there for me to test it.
> 
> Tell me about how sbd works, please.
> 

nm, found the page for it.

http://www.linux-ha.org/wiki/SBD_Fencing

-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?