If the fork bomb is preventing the system from spawning a health check, it would seem like the most intelligent course of action would be to presume that it failed and act accordingly.
-Eric On 7/8/11 8:38 AM, "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <l...@suse.de> wrote: >On 2011-07-08T14:10:09, Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cec...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So that each node has to write to its dedicated part of it and read >> from the other ones. >> If one node doesn't update its portion it is then detected by the >> others and it is fenced after a configurable number of misses... >> Does pacemaker provide some sort of this configuration? > >external/sbd as a fencing mechanism provides this, but that is not the >same as a load & system health check at all. > >Though tieing into that would make sense, yes. > > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >Linux-HA mailing list >Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org >http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha >See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
