On 2006-04-24T13:01:50, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Comments please?
>
> The recovery seemed a bit harsh, however we already move all healthy
> resources away before fencing a node so it isn't so horrible.
Ah, this would be impossible in Alan's proposal. The node would be
blocked at the CCM level, and thus we couldn't communicate with said
node to move any resources away.
Handling it at the CRM level would be better for this exact reason.
> I assume the idea is that until un-banned, the node can't join the
> cluster? At least that prevents shooting the node over and over
> again. For this reason I think un-banning needs to be a manual
> process.
Right.
Actually that's an issue with our current fencing mechanism, we can only
fence, but don't have an explicit "unfence" operation. We might need to
consider how to model that.
> We might need to be careful that a bunch of banned nodes aren't able
> to form a cluster of their own and start managing resources.
Good point. Until they have quorum, they shouldn't.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
