On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 14:11, Dejan Muhamedagic
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 11:40:52AM +0530, Romi Verma wrote:
> >> Thanks Dejan,
> >> it is really good info for me . one more question, suppose we are
> running a
> >
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 14:11, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 11:40:52AM +0530, Romi Verma wrote:
>> Thanks Dejan,
>> it is really good info for me . one more question, suppose we are running a
>> stonith as clone on four nodes cluster. if one nodes fails and it needs t
even if all three nodes are trying to reset the errant node, dont you think
it would be better if a node would have informed other 2 members after
fencing the errant node that i have successfully stonith the errant node. it
will save other 2 nodes in putting extra effort in fencing the errant nod
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 05:09, Romi Verma wrote:
> Thanks for reply Dejan,
>>
>> No, there is no coordination between nodes. All of them will try
>> to reset the node.
>
> if All of them will try then dont you think it can lead to multiple reset?
> it's not good right??
Far better than corrupted
