Hi Marek, thanks for your quickly responding.
According to you opinion, when i type "pcs status" then i saw the following result of fence : ipmi-fence-node1 (stonith:fence_ipmilan): Started cluaterb ipmi-fence-node2 (stonith:fence_ipmilan): Started clusterb Does it means both ipmi stonith devices are working correctly? (rest of resources can failover to another node correctly) should i have to use location constraint to avoid stonith device running on same node ? # pcs constraint location ipmi-fence-node1 prefers clustera # pcs constraint location ipmi-fence-node2 prefers clusterb thanks a lot On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Marek Grac <mg...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Albert Weng <weng.alb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I have created active/passive pacemaker cluster on RHEL 7. >> >> here is my environment: >> clustera : 192.168.11.1 >> clusterb : 192.168.11.2 >> clustera-ilo4 : 192.168.11.10 >> clusterb-ilo4 : 192.168.11.11 >> >> both nodes are connected SAN storage for shared storage. >> >> i used the following cmd to create my stonith devices on each node : >> # pcs -f stonith_cfg stonith create ipmi-fence-node1 fence_ipmilan parms >> lanplus="ture" pcmk_host_list="clustera" pcmk_host_check="static-list" >> action="reboot" ipaddr="192.168.11.10" login=adminsitrator passwd=1234322 >> op monitor interval=60s >> >> # pcs -f stonith_cfg stonith create ipmi-fence-node02 fence_ipmilan parms >> lanplus="true" pcmk_host_list="clusterb" pcmk_host_check="static-list" >> action="reboot" ipaddr="192.168.11.11" login=USERID passwd=password op >> monitor interval=60s >> >> # pcs status >> ipmi-fence-node1 clustera >> ipmi-fence-node2 clusterb >> >> but when i failover to passive node, then i ran >> # pcs status >> >> ipmi-fence-node1 clusterb >> ipmi-fence-node2 clusterb >> >> why both fence device locate on the same node ? >> > > When node 'clustera' is down, is there any place where ipmi-fence-node* > can be executed? > > If you are worrying that node can not self-fence itself you are right. But > if 'clustera' will become available then attempt to fence clusterb will > work as expected. > > m, > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org > http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org > > -- Kind regards, Albert Weng <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> 不含病毒。www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org