On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Bernd Schubert <bernd.schub...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > On 02/20/2013 09:52 AM, Lukas Grossar wrote: >> On 20.02.2013 09:28, Bernd Schubert wrote: >>> On 02/19/2013 10:58 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Bernd Schubert >>>> <bernd.schub...@fastmail.fm> wrote: >>>>> On 02/19/2013 06:53 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Ford <pyrok...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Lukas, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for the quick reply. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Lukas Grossar >>>>>>> <lukas.gros...@adfinis-sygroup.ch> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 15.02.2013 16:43, Bruce Ford wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm running pacemaker 1.1.7 on RedHat 6.3 using the fence_ipmilan >>>>>>>>> fence agent from the "fence-agents" 3.1.5 package. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I found that although I have chosen the action "off", this doesn't >>>>>>>>> power off the target node but reboots it with a graceful shutdown. So >>>>>>>>> I investigated on the commandline: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I ran into the same problem when setting up a cluster using CentOS 6.3 >>>>>>>> and sent a mail to the mailing list about a week ago and got the >>>>>>>> following reaction from Andrew Beekhof: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Prior to 6.4 there was some inconsistency between the various agents >>>>>>>>> and whether they supported "action" or "option". >>>>>>>>> An upgrade to 6.4 in the next few weeks should solve this for you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does 6.4 mean RedHat/Centos 6.4? What a pity, this is currently not an >>>>>>> option. >>>>>>> Will we face serious problems trying to backport the new fence-agents >>>>>>> package? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, should be pretty straightforward >>>>> >>>>> So that will introduce another serious change of behaviour in RHEL 6.4? >>>> >>>> No. All agents now support "action". Anything that used to support >>>> "option" will continue to do so. >>> >>> Hmm, I'm still not sure if I understand it correctly. So with 6.4 one >>> has to set (in crm syntax): >>> >>> property stonith-action="reboot" >>> ? >>> >>> Right now we have: >>> >>> property stonith-action="poweroff" >>> >>> and the fence_ipmilan option: action=off >>> >>> And that leads to a reboot, as it is supposed to do for this >>> installation. >> >> That may be what it is supposed to do for this installation, but it is >> not what it is supposed to do according to the documentation/man page. > > > I'm aware of that. However, it was tested that way, 'reboot' was not > accepted by the agent as parameter and retesting on an upgrade will be > difficult. So if it was a bug, then it was at least a tested bug and > fixing it will break existing installations. From my point of view that > is fine with upstream, but wrong for stable distributions. Distribution > packages instead should document it and add another option such > "really-poweroff".
No. No no no no. This is all kinds of wrong. That the agent did not accept the reboot command (and yet was clearly capable of supporting it) is a bug which should have been reported. Instead you chose a path that relied on a behaviour that was quite obviously the complete opposite of the documented one. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is very unfortunate that you will be affected by this, but you should, at the very least, have queried _someone_ about it before betting the farm. No distro I know of claims to be bug-for-bug compatible with previous releases, even in a stable series. _______________________________________________ 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
