[ClusterLabs] Antw: Using pacemaker for manual failover only?

[Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais]

Le Tue, 24 May 2016 07:49:16 +0200,
"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> a écrit :

> >>> "Stephano-Shachter, Dylan" <dstathis at seas.harvard.edu> schrieb am
> >>> 23.05.2016 um
> 21:03 in Nachricht
> <CAOL2+gWsvbwY4XBHHUFLAFT5SnLpb12JNf0cTe+Vn5DoULLcEg at mail.gmail.com>:
> 
> [...]
>  I would like for the cluster to do nothing when a node fails unexpectedly.
> [...]
> So this means you only want the cluster to do something, if the node fails as
> part of a planned maintenance? Then you need no cluster at all! (MHO)

I can see the use case for this. I already faced situation where customers 
wanted a one step procedure to failover manually on the other side. I call this 
is the big-red-button failover.

Producing its own custom shell script to failover a resource is actually really
complexe. There so many way it could fail and only one way to do it properly.
And of course, not a single architecture is the same than the other one, so
we quickly end up with custom script everywhere. And we are not speaking of
fencing yet...

Being able to set up and test a cluster to deal with all the machinery to
move your resource correctly is much more confortable and safe.