----- Original Message ----- > From: "Livnat Peer" <lp...@redhat.com> > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzasl...@redhat.com> > Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 12:57:34 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SSH Soft Fencing > > On 07/01/2013 11:27 AM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Martin Perina" <mper...@redhat.com> > >> To: engine-devel@ovirt.org > >> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 11:23:12 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SSH Soft Fencing > >> > >> So let me summarize it: > >> > >> We have come to agreement in those questions: > >> > >> 1) SSH Soft Fencing logic should be extracted from > >> VdsNotRespondingTreatment > >> command to its own SshSoftFencingCommand > >> > >> 2) VdsNotRespondingCommand should be refactored so it's not inherited from > >> VdsRestartCommand, but it should run SshSoftFencingCommand > >> or VdsRestartCommand based on defined fencing flow > >> > >> > >> These questions has not been resolved yet: > >> > >> 3) Should SSH Soft Fencing be executed also for hosts without PM > >> configured? > >> > >> 4) Should SSH Soft Fencing execution for hosts without PM configured be > >> enabled > >> by default and admin can turn off these feature using configuration > >> options > >> SshSoftFencingWithoutPmEnabled (or something like that)? > >> > >> 5) Should SshSoftFencingWithoutPmEnabled be a global option or a cluster > >> wide > >> option (can be turned off for specific cluster version) or a VDS option > >> (it can be turned off for each host)? > >> > >> > >> Personally I would suggest: > >> > >> ad 3) Yes, SSH Soft Fencing should be executed also for hosts without PM > >> configured > >> > > > +1 > > >> ad 4) Yes, SSH Soft Fencing for hosts without PM configured should be > >> enabled by default > >> > > +1 > > >> ad 5) I don't see any significant reason why someone would like to turn > >> off > >> SSH Soft Fencing > >> for hosts without PM configured. But if someone would like to do > >> that, > >> I think > >> he would like to turn it off only for specific hosts, so VDS level > >> option makes sense > >> for me > > > > After re-thinking 5 - I agree. > > +1 on the other suggestions, but of course we need to get more consensus > > here. > > > > I think it does not need to be configurable.
+1 on all above as well > > >> > >> > >> Martin > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Engine-devel mailing list > >> Engine-devel@ovirt.org > >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Engine-devel mailing list > > Engine-devel@ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
