Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Apr 24, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
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.
oh... missed that connection :-(
Handling it at the CRM level would be better for this exact reason.
could we perhaps use attrd and a rsc_location rule to stop the "bad" side?
i haven't thought this through at all, but you'd get dampening, it
would be crm-driven, and you avoid fencing (unless the stop fails).
the hard bit is deciding who should send what values to attrd.
just a thought.
The advantage of the proposal is that you don't have a bad node banning
a good node. You just take it as connectivity information, and we apply
our current membership algorithm to it - which tends (but is not
guaranteed to) exclude the right nodes from membership.
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
