On 2011-05-16T09:55:13, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > >> Couldn't both sides start shooting each other until one looses the token? > > > > Not more than before, though I'd expect a side that freshly rebooted to > > come up w/o any token. > > > > In general, the possibility for a fencing deathmatch is not different > > than before, though. > I disagree. > Before this, ignoring 2-node clusters for a moment, only one side has > quorum which is normally a requirement for fencing to begin.
I'm not quite sure I follow. Regular fencing is completely the same as before - i.e., nodes will be fenced in the same situations as before. Only when a ticket is revoked or lost does the deadman-fencing kick in, but that is mostly separate from quorum? > With this, its more like no-quorum-policy=ignore where even a single > node can start shooting. A single node - or in general, a non-quorate partition - can only start shoting _itself_ when it loses a ticket. I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to discuss here; maybe you can rephrase? 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 _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker