On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 16:44, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:00, Satomi TANIGUCHI
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> If you _really_ want to have a per-plugin value, I suggest making it
>> an extra resource parameter (ie. like hostlist) and teach stonithd to
>> look for and use it _instead_of_ the CRM-supplied value.
>>
>> Dejan: Any objections to something like this?
>
> No.
>
>> > Cascaded stonith setup can be realized by setting two or more plugins in a
>> > group
>> > at the moment.
>
> I don't think so. Currently, all stonith plugins (coming from
> various stonith resources) are tried in turn until one succeeds,
> but there is no ordering. The information about them being
> grouped is lost, i.e. stonithd has no idea which stonith plugin
> should be invoked first. Another option (attribute) would have to
> be implemented, something like "priority".
>
>> > As far as I confirm, if the first plugin in a group is failed,
>> > the second one is executed.
>> > And if the first one succeeds, the second one is _not_ executed.
>
> Right.
>
>> > If it is an unexpected behavior, please let me know the correct one.
>>
>> Cool.  I had no idea.  I, like the CRM, am blissfully ignorant of how
>> STONITHd works :-)
>
> Good for you :)
>
> To summarize, we'd need the following new features:
>
> - stonith plugin priority (ordering of stonith resources) (stonithd)

ack

> - fencing operation timeouts per stonith resource (stonithd)

ack

> - global fencing timeout (crm cluster property)

Or, we totally ignore this and rely solely on the per-resource value above.
I'd vote for that for the sake of consistency (otherwise its
non-obvious which value takes precedence)

>
> The global fencing timeout would have to be set either to the
> total of single timeouts or maximum timeout depending on the
> nature of devices.
>
> Any objections or pitfalls?

The timing... if people want this for 1.0, then someone needs to get a
patch to me by the 24th (Wednesday) at the latest.
There'll be no more features after then (bugfixes are of course ok,
just no new features).
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/

Reply via email to