[ClusterLabs] SBD & Failed Peer
andrew at beekhof.net
Tue Sep 8 18:33:33 EDT 2015
> On 9 Sep 2015, at 12:13 am, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/07/2015 07:48 AM, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
>> On 09/07/2015 03:27 AM, Digimer wrote:
>>> And this is why I am nervous; It is always ideal to have a primary fence
>>> method that has a method of confirming the 'off' state. IPMI fencing can
>>> do this, as can hypervisor-based fence methods like fence_virsh and
>> Hi Digimer,
>> Yes, I thought that confirmation was kind of sacred but now I know it's
>> not always possible.
>>> I would use IPMI (iLO, DRAC, etc) as the primary fence method and
>>> something else as a secondary, backup method. You can use SBD + watchdog
>>> as the backup method, or as I do, a pair of switched PDUs (I find APC
>>> brand to be very fast in fencing).
>> This sounds great. Is there a way to specify a primary & secondary
>> fencing device? I haven't seen a way to specify such hierarchy in
> Good news/bad news:
> Yes, pacemaker supports complex hierarchies of multiple fencing devices,
> which it calls "fencing topology". There is a small example at
> Unfortunately, sbd is not supported in fencing topologies.
Another way to look at it, is that sbd is only supported in fencing topologies - just not explicit ones.
Self-termination is always the least best option, so we’ll only use it if all other options (including topologies) are exhausted.
But we’ll do so automatically.
> hooks into sbd via dedicated internal logic, not a conventional fence
> agent, so it's treated differently. You might want to open an RFE bug
> either upstream or with your OS vendor if you want to put it on the
> radar, but sbd isn't entirely under Pacemaker's control, so I'm not sure
> how feasible it would be.
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
More information about the Users