On 01/07/2013, at 9:45 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote:
> 01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > ... >>>> 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. > > ok, then here is my +1 :) > >> 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. > > It would be natural. > >> But I can't justify the effort for only a handful of deployments. > > I do not use that only because I never used rgmanager, and that setup > was not supported in pacemaker. If it was, I'd build my clusters in a > different way, without need to reinvent a wheel. So, probably you may > look from the other side - nobody uses unimplemented features but > willing to use them once implemented. Yes, but people around here also tend to be quite vocal when they think something is missing. More so if its something critical. _______________________________________________ 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
