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

Andrew Beekhof andrew at beekhof.net
Fri Jun 28 11:01:55 UTC 2013


On 28/06/2013, at 8:46 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.com> wrote:

> On 2013-06-28T20:21:22, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
> 
>>> It looks correct, but not quite sane. ;-) That seems not to be
>>> something you can address, though. I'm thinking that fencing topology
>>> should be smart enough to, if multiple fencing devices are specified, to
>>> know how to expand them to "first all off (if off fails anywhere, it's a
>>> failure), then all on (if on fails, it is not a failure)". That'd
>>> greatly simplify the syntax.
>> The RH agents have apparently already been updated to support multiple ports.
>> I'm really not keen on having the stonith-ng doing this.
> 
> I'd agree, but it's not multiple ports on the same device, it's multiple
> ports on *different* devices. I don't think a single fencing agent can
> handle that - it really looks like something only the higher level can
> cope with.

True, it wouldn't handle that case but the case itself seems needlessly complex to me.
Particularly since we've gotten by until very recently with single devices.





More information about the Pacemaker mailing list