On Wed, 2022-12-21 at 10:45 +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote: > > > > Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> schrieb am 20.12.2022 um > > > > 16:21 in > Nachricht > <3a5960c2331f97496119720f6b5a760b3fe3bbcf.ca...@redhat.com>: > > On Tue, 2022‑12‑20 at 11:33 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:07 AM Ulrich Windl > > > <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni‑regensburg.de> wrote: > > > > > But keep in mind that if the whole site is down (or > > > > > unaccessible) > > > > > you > > > > > will not have access to IPMI/PDU/whatever on this site so > > > > > your > > > > > stonith > > > > > agents will fail ... > > > > > > > > But, considering the design, such site won't have a quorum and > > > > should commit suicide, right? > > > > > > > > > > Not by default. > > > > And even if it does, the rest of the cluster can't assume that it > > did, > > so resources can't be recovered. It could work with sbd, but the > > poster > > said that the physical hosts aren't accessible. > > Why? Assuming fencing is configured, the nodes part of the quorum > should wait > for fencing delay, assuming fencing (or suicide) was done. > Then they can manage resources. OK, a non-working fencing or suicide > mechanism > is a different story... > > Regards, > Ulrich
Right, that would be using watchdog-based SBD for self-fencing, but the poster can't use SBD in this case. -- Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/