Hi, The bugzilla:
http://old.linux-foundation.org/developer_bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1752 Thanks, Dejan On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:34:19AM +0200, matilda matilda wrote: > >>> Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 25.10.2007 11:17 >>> > >> > >> One per machine and resticted to run on the other...what have you thought? > >> ;-)) > > > >That should suffice. BTW, I don't think this (don't wanna kill > >meself) is a very serious issue, because a typical situation is > >that another node does a reset. > > Hi Dejan, > > I agree with you. The "problem" arises when I get a failure on the > monitor action of the stonith plugin, failcount and the corresponding > calculation forces the stonith resource to be moved to exactly that > node which has to be shot. My intent is to have a fallback situation > in which the stonith plugin can (!) be moved to the node which has to > be killed. > > As far as I understand it now: If this would happen, I'll see the > stonith resource moved to the other node, feel happy about the > nice failover mechanisms but the stonith agent will prevent to shoot > itself. In this case I can get rid of the whole failover mechanism. > > This is the motivation to discuss about it. > > Happy digging > Andreas Mock > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
