Re: [Pacemaker] very urgent
we kill the node with STONITH. very hard for a machine to write to shared media when its powered off. we can kill nodes when: - nodes become unresponsive - nodes are not part of the cluster that has quorum - resources fail to stop when instructed - resources fail in any way (optional) 1) well if somehow STONITH fails to kill the errant node and the node is still alive , it will be able to do IO on shared disk. this can cause data integrity issue right?? 2) suppose we have set STONITH action to reboot then the errant node can comeup and still write to shared disk , even if it does not suppose to do this. if openais -pacemaker provide something for resouce fencing we would have completely ruled out above possiblities Please share your view. i am sure you ppl must have something . waiting for your reply, Thanks ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Re: [Pacemaker] very urgent
On Feb 16, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Glory Smith wrote: we kill the node with STONITH. very hard for a machine to write to shared media when its powered off. we can kill nodes when: - nodes become unresponsive - nodes are not part of the cluster that has quorum - resources fail to stop when instructed - resources fail in any way (optional) 1) well if somehow STONITH fails to kill the errant node and the node is still alive , having an unreliable stonith mechanism is worse than not having one at all. what if your resource fencing has a bug? its the same problem. reliable fencing is a fundamental requirement of the cluster. it will be able to do IO on shared disk. this can cause data integrity issue right?? 2) suppose we have set STONITH action to reboot then the errant node can comeup and still write to shared disk , even if it does not suppose to do this. 1) well dont configure it like that then 2) no, it cant. it wont have quorum and therefor isn't allowed to start cluster resources if openais -pacemaker provide something for resouce fencing we would have completely ruled out above possiblities Please share your view. ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Re: [Pacemaker] very urgent
I get the feeling that by resource fencing, you just mean scsi reservations which are already possible in the current framework. Yes i want persistent scsi reservation .it's really great that it is possible in current framework , but i couldnot find it and when posted a query about this sometime back , got a impression that it is only available in RHCS not in suse 11 :( _ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Re: [Pacemaker] very urgent
Hi Andrew, how do we configure pesisten reservation fencing in suse 11. Thanks, On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Glory Smith xx2gl...@gmail.com wrote: I get the feeling that by resource fencing, you just mean scsi reservations which are already possible in the current framework. Yes i want persistent scsi reservation .it's really great that it is possible in current framework , but i couldnot find it and when posted a query about this sometime back , got a impression that it is only available in RHCS not in suse 11 :( _ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Re: [Pacemaker] very urgent
I believe its called SBD, but I'm no expert on it On Feb 16, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Glory Smith wrote: Hi Andrew, how do we configure pesisten reservation fencing in suse 11. Thanks, On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Glory Smith xx2gl...@gmail.com wrote: I get the feeling that by resource fencing, you just mean scsi reservations which are already possible in the current framework. Yes i want persistent scsi reservation .it's really great that it is possible in current framework , but i couldnot find it and when posted a query about this sometime back , got a impression that it is only available in RHCS not in suse 11 :( _ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker ___ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
