Re: [Linux-cluster] qdisk WITHOUT fencing

2010-06-18 Thread brem belguebli
How do you deal with fencing when the intersite interconnects (SAN and LAN) are the cause of the failure ? 2010/6/18 Don Hoover : > Couldn't the geo cluster be most reliably solved by writing or using a fence > based on a script to make SAN changes or based on controlling the storage > replicat

Re: [Linux-cluster] qdisk WITHOUT fencing

2010-06-18 Thread Don Hoover
Couldn't the geo cluster be most reliably solved by writing or using a fence based on a script to make SAN changes or based on controlling the storage replication? Maybe it's just a matter of the fact that you need different kinds of fencing than are currently available. -- Linux-cluster mail

Re: [Linux-cluster] Higher Grained Definition ofIP AddressAssignments

2010-06-18 Thread Dustin Henry Offutt
Aye-aye. Will do. Kaloyan Kovachev wrote: On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:59:59 -0500, Dustin Henry Offutt wrote: Believe this issue has been resolved by altering /usr/share/cluster/ip.sh. The resulting script has added new XML for a new "device" parameter. New variable 'device' is passed

Re: [Linux-cluster] Higher Grained Definition ofIP AddressAssignments

2010-06-18 Thread Kaloyan Kovachev
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:59:59 -0500, Dustin Henry Offutt wrote: > Believe this issue has been resolved by altering /usr/share/cluster/ip.sh. > > The resulting script has added new XML for a new "device" parameter. > > New variable 'device' is passed to the ip_op function and then to functions > i

Re: [Linux-cluster] qdisk WITHOUT fencing

2010-06-18 Thread Gordan Bobic
On 06/18/2010 11:28 AM, Jankowski, Chris wrote: Can you please sort out the (lack of) word-wraps in your email client? Do you have a better idea? How do you propose to ensure that there is no resource clash when a node becomes intermittent or half-dead? How do you prevent it's interference from

Re: [Linux-cluster] qdisk WITHOUT fencing

2010-06-18 Thread Jankowski, Chris
Gordan, >>>Do you have a better idea? How do you propose to ensure that there is no >>>resource clash when a node becomes intermittent or half-dead? How do you >>>prevent it's interference from bringing down the service? What do you >>>propose? More importantly, how would you propose to handle

Re: [Linux-cluster] qdisk WITHOUT fencing

2010-06-18 Thread brem belguebli
2010/6/18 Jankowski, Chris : > Brem, > > I love this analogy. > I hit the light after a few beers discussing with colleagues of RHCS ;-) > Using the analogy you gave, the problem with a mafioso is that he cannot kill > all other mafiosos in the gang when they are all sitting in solitary > confin

Re: [Linux-cluster] qdisk WITHOUT fencing

2010-06-18 Thread Gordan Bobic
On 06/18/2010 07:57 AM, Jankowski, Chris wrote: Using the analogy you gave, the problem with a mafioso is that he cannot kill all other mafiosos in the gang when they are all sitting in solitary confinment cells (:-)). Do you have a better idea? How do you propose to ensure that there is no r

Re: [Linux-cluster] qdisk WITHOUT fencing

2010-06-18 Thread Volker Dormeyer
Hi, On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 05:58:44PM +0200, jimbob palmer wrote: > I have two data centers linked by physical fibre. Everything goes over > this physical route: everything. > > I would like to setup a high availability nfs server with drbd: > * drbd to replicate storage > * nfsd running > * fl

Re: [Linux-cluster] qdisk WITHOUT fencing

2010-06-18 Thread Jankowski, Chris
Brem, I love this analogy. Using the analogy you gave, the problem with a mafioso is that he cannot kill all other mafiosos in the gang when they are all sitting in solitary confinment cells (:-)). I would like to remark that this STONITH business causes endless problems in clusters within a