On 23/04/17 12:51 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 22.04.2017 23:33, Dmitri Maziuk пишет:
>> On 4/22/2017 12:02 PM, Digimer wrote:
>>
>>> Having SBD properly configured is *massively* safer than no fencing at
>>> all. So for people where other fence methods are not available for
>>> whatever reason,
22.04.2017 23:33, Dmitri Maziuk пишет:
> On 4/22/2017 12:02 PM, Digimer wrote:
>
>> Having SBD properly configured is *massively* safer than no fencing at
>> all. So for people where other fence methods are not available for
>> whatever reason, SBD is the way to go.
>
> Now you're talking. IMO
On 4/22/2017 12:02 PM, Digimer wrote:
Having SBD properly configured is *massively* safer than no fencing at
all. So for people where other fence methods are not available for
whatever reason, SBD is the way to go.
Now you're talking. IMO in a 2-node cluster, a node that kills itself in
On 22/04/17 04:39 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 22.04.2017 11:31, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
>
I wonder how SBD fits into this discussion. It is marketed as stonith
agent, but it is based on committing suicide so relies on well-behaving
nodes. Which we by definition cannot trust to
22.04.2017 11:31, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
>>> I wonder how SBD fits into this discussion. It is marketed as stonith
>>> agent, but it is based on committing suicide so relies on well-behaving
>>> nodes. Which we by definition cannot trust to behave well, otherwise
>>> we'd not need stonith in
On 04/22/2017 09:20 AM, Digimer wrote:
> On 22/04/17 03:05 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 18.04.2017 10:47, Ulrich Windl пишет:
>> ...
Now let me come back to quorum vs. stonith;
Said simply; Quorum is a tool for when everything is working. Fencing is
a tool for when things go
18.04.2017 10:47, Ulrich Windl пишет:
...
>>
>> Now let me come back to quorum vs. stonith;
>>
>> Said simply; Quorum is a tool for when everything is working. Fencing is
>> a tool for when things go wrong.
>
> I'd say: Quorum is the tool to decide who'll be alive and who's going to die,
> and
