[ClusterLabs] fencing on iscsi device not working

[Ken Gaillot]

Coincidentally, the documentation for the pcmk_host_check default was
recently updated for the upcoming 2.0.3 release. Once the release is
out, the online documentation will be regenerated, but here is the
text:

Default
-------
static-list if either pcmk_host_list or pcmk_host_map is set, otherwise
dynamic-list if the fence device supports the list action, otherwise
status if the fence device supports the status action, otherwise none

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 11:01 +0100, wferi at niif.hu wrote:
> Roger Zhou <ZZhou at suse.com> writes:
> 
> > On 11/3/19 12:56 AM, wferi at niif.hu wrote:
> > 
> > > Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar at gmail.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > According to documentation, pcmk_host_list is used only if
> > > > pcmk_host_check=static-list which is not default, by default
> > > > pacemaker
> > > > queries agent for nodes it can fence and fence_scsi does not
> > > > return
> > > > anything.
> > > 
> > > The documentation is somewhat vague here.  The note about
> > > pcmk_host_list
> > > says: "optional unless pcmk_host_check is static-list".  It does
> > > not
> > > state how pcmk_host_list is used if pcmk_host_check is the
> > > default
> > > dynamic-list, 
> > 
> > The confusion might be because of "the language barrier".
> > 
> > My interpretation is like this:
> > 
> > 1. pcmk_host_list is used only if pcmk_host_check is static-list.
> > 
> > 2. pcmk_host_check's default is dynamic-list.
> >     That means, by default pcmk_host_list is not used at all.
> 
> But this interpretation does not align with reality:
> 
> > > but I successfully use such setups with Pacemaker 1.1.16
> > > with fence_ipmilan.
> 
> (I mean I don't set pcmk_host_check on my fence_ipmilan resources,
> only
> pcmk_host_list, and they work.)
> 
> Unless:
> 
> > > the behavior is different in 2.0.1 (the version in Debian
> > > buster).
> 
> That's why I asked:
> 
> > > Ram, what happens if you set pcmk_host_check to static-list?
> 
> Of course the developers are most welcome to chime in with their
> intentions and changes concerning this, I haven't got the time to dig
> into the core right now.  Tough I'm very much interested for my own
> sake
> as well, because I'm about to bring up a buster cluster with very
> similar config.
-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>