On 2011-05-20T08:16:23, Ulrich Windl <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> > Well, yes. I'm not quite sure why you'd want to use sfex though if you
> > have sbd fencing anyway.
> SBD is for node fencing only. If I need to ensure exclusive assignment of
> shared storage resources (well you never know what the cluster stuff tries to
> do) to avoid data corruption (e.g. through MD-RAID), I feel the need for
> cluster-wise mutex-locks.
This is not quite correct.
SBD is fencing "only", but fencing already ensures that no node will
acquire resources unless possible competitors have been fenced.
If you doubt that this - very fundamental and heavily tested - part of
the cluster logic doesn't work, it is much more reasonable to assume
that sfex generates a false positive or that a sfex dependency is
ignored.
Neither will protect you against admins fumbling and accidentally
corrupting the data.
Combining sfex and sbd does not create any real benefit, it just
complicates your configuration, making it more likely to fail.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
