[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: Stonith

[Ken Gaillot]

On Wed, 2022-12-21 at 10:45 +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > > > Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> schrieb am 20.12.2022 um
> > > > 16:21 in
> Nachricht
> <3a5960c2331f97496119720f6b5a760b3fe3bbcf.camel at redhat.com>:
> > On Tue, 2022‑12‑20 at 11:33 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:07 AM Ulrich Windl
> > > <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni‑regensburg.de> wrote:
> > > > > But keep in mind that if the whole site is down (or
> > > > > unaccessible)
> > > > > you
> > > > > will not have access to IPMI/PDU/whatever on this site so
> > > > > your
> > > > > stonith
> > > > > agents will fail ...
> > > > 
> > > > But, considering the design, such site won't have a quorum and
> > > > should commit suicide, right?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Not by default.
> > 
> > And even if it does, the rest of the cluster can't assume that it
> > did,
> > so resources can't be recovered. It could work with sbd, but the
> > poster
> > said that the physical hosts aren't accessible.
> 
> Why? Assuming fencing is configured, the nodes part of the quorum
> should wait
> for fencing delay, assuming fencing (or suicide) was done.
> Then they can manage resources. OK, a non-working fencing or suicide
> mechanism
> is a different story...
> 
> Regards,
> Ulrich

Right, that would be using watchdog-based SBD for self-fencing, but the
poster can't use SBD in this case.
-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>