>>> Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07.11.2007 09:59 >>> >I'd argue that it is exactly these situations where ssh is _better_ >than suicide.
Probably several aspects are mixed in this thread. If it's reduced to that question I can't give a qualified comment. But it seems meaningful that a crazy running node is so crazy that it can't kill itself. :-)) >> - Emphasize the necessity of an external properly configured stonith >> device. > > wiki.linux-ha.org :-) Why did I knew that you would answer this way? :-)) (I had to laugh really loud reading your answer here). >> RA will NEVER happen if stonith is not configured. > >I'm pretty sure you get this by setting on_fail=block >And actually if a stop fails and stonith is not enabled you end up >blocking anyway. Another piece of valuable information. Spiced up with an use case it becomes really interesting. ;-) >But thats a different scenario to fencing in response to a node-level >failure Yes, I mixed it up a bit. > Implementing suicide guarantees that there will be downtime. Yes, that's true. I just wanted to emphasize that it should never ever come to this situation. It should be treated as an extreme situation. So, to grab the methaphor from above: Someone has to decide up to which level of node-crazyiness the crazy node can heal itself or from which level of crazyness you just can get rid of that node. Is it feasible to find that point on the range of node-crazyness. Back to normal speech: Can someone really take every possible cause of node-failure into account. Best regards Andreas Mock _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
