On 07/01/2013 01:43 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 07/01/2013 12:59 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: >> On 2013-07-01T12:58:25, Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote: >> >>>> Pacemaker can monitor the fencing device if you configure a monitor >>>> action for it, for exactly this reason. >>> My *very* initial testing of op monitor="30" didn't detect the failure >>> or recovery of the fence device. I may very well have screwed something >>> up though... I still have a lot to learn. >> >> The check should call out to the agent with a status request. I, on the >> other hand, am not familiar with how that works for fence_* agents, >> since I've so far only worked with the cluster-glue based agents. >> >>> I protect against this scenario by using two switches and plugging IPMI >>> into the first switch and the PDUs into the second switch. All nodes use >>> bonded links with a leg in either switch. So the failure of an entire >>> switch will not cause an interruption or the loss of fencing capabilities. >> >> Ah, yes, that'd work. >> >> Though I admit this whole conversation just convinces me more and more >> about prefering to use sbd fencing. ;-) I wonder if you could give it a >> thought? >> >> It does lack a fence_sbd wrapper (if you want to use it on RHEL w/o the >> rest), but maybe someone feels like contributing one ;-) > > I only use fence_*, so the wrapper would need to be there for me to test it. > > Tell me about how sbd works, please. >
nm, found the page for it. http://www.linux-ha.org/wiki/SBD_Fencing -- 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
