On 01/07/2013, at 5:32 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote:
> 29.06.2013 02:22, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> On 29/06/2013, at 12:22 AM, Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote: >> >>> On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>> >>>> On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \ >>>>>> params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="off" port="1" >>>>>> pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca" >>>>>> primitive fence_n01_psu1_on stonith:fence_apc_snmp \ >>>>>> params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="on" port="1" >>>>>> pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca" >>>>> >>>>> So every device twice, including location constraints? I see potential >>>>> for optimization by improving how the fence code handles this ... That's >>>>> abhorrently complex. (And I'm not sure the 'action' parameter ought to >>>>> be overwritten.) >>>> >>>> I'm not crazy about it either because it means the device is tied to a >>>> specific command. >>>> But it seems to be something all the RHCS people try to do... >>> >>> Maybe something in the rhcs water cooler made us all mad... ;) >>> >>>>> Glad you got it working, though. >>>>> >>>>>> location loc_fence_n01_ipmi fence_n01_ipmi -inf: an-c03n01.alteeve.ca >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure you need any of these location constraints, by the way. Did >>>>> you test if it works without them? >>>>> >>>>>> Again, this is after just one test. I will want to test it several more >>>>>> times before I consider it reliable. Ideally, I would love to hear >>>>>> Andrew or others confirm this looks sane/correct. >>>>> >>>>> It looks correct, but not quite sane. ;-) That seems not to be >>>>> something you can address, though. I'm thinking that fencing topology >>>>> should be smart enough to, if multiple fencing devices are specified, to >>>>> know how to expand them to "first all off (if off fails anywhere, it's a >>>>> failure), then all on (if on fails, it is not a failure)". That'd >>>>> greatly simplify the syntax. >>>> >>>> The RH agents have apparently already been updated to support multiple >>>> ports. >>>> I'm really not keen on having the stonith-ng doing this. >>> >>> This doesn't help people who have dual power rails/PDUs for power >>> redundancy. >> >> I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in the >> first place. >> If it were actually useful, I suspect more than two/three people would have >> asked for it in the last decade. > > I'm just silently waiting for this to happen. Rarely a good plan. Better to make my life so miserable that implementing it seems like a vacation in comparison :) > Although I use different fencing scheme (and plan to use even more > different one), that is very nice fall-back path for me. And I strongly > prefer all complexities like reboot -> off-off-on-on to be hidden from > the configuration. Naturally, that is task for the entity which has > whole picture of what to do - stonithd. Just my 'IMHO'. If the tides of public opinion change, then yes, stonithd is the place. But I can't justify the effort for only a handful of deployments. > > And, to PSU/PDU. I, like Digimer, always separate power circuits as much > as possible. Of course I always use redundant PSUs. > > Vladislav > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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