On 06/28/2013 11:45 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2013-06-28T11:20:32, Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote: > >> Yes, a failed "on" action would then fail the method. This is >> sub-optimal as FenceAgentAPI says that only the "off" portion of >> "reboot" needs to succeed. However, I don't consider this a show stopper >> because "on" action of PDUs simply means "re-energize the outlet". If >> the node blew up, it won't boot, but the "on" will still succeed, so the >> overall method would succeed. > > Wait. If the "failed on" would fail this method, the fence will still be > considered "failed", right? Hence the cluster would block?
Yes, but this is exceedingly unlikely to happen. If the PDU has lost control of the relay for an outlet, the off will fail as well. And in such a case, the IPMI interface should still be working as the other PDU will still be powering the node. The only realistic way for this to fail is if there are two simultaneous failures. >> Again though, with all this said, I will be happy with just keeping this >> existing functionality. It works. > > Sure, given enough thrust, pigs achieve amazing things ;-) > >> In fact, I'll write 'fence_apc_multi' as a proof of concept. Give me the >> weekend to do this. > > But why? Why not spend that time on fixing it properly, if you're going > to fix it? It's a horrible hack! > > I'll shut up now. I am not a C programmer, so I can't work on pacemaker. I can write fence agents though, and have written a few already. So this is the only mechanism I can contribute. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org