Hi, On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:09:19PM +0100, Johan Hoeke wrote: > Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:26:12PM +0100, Johan Hoeke wrote: > >> Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:19:55AM +0100, Johan Hoeke wrote: > >>> Oops. So there's an on_fail=fence for this monitor operation. Is > >>> that necessary? > >> We want the cluster to failover if oracle breaks for whatever reason. > >> At least I think we do ;) > > > > But failing over is not the same as fencing. Why would you fence > > a cooperating node. > > Hi Dejan, > > We're using fibre channel attached storage. I want to fence to protect > the data on the SAN.
That's a good cause, but why do you think that the data is jeopardized. I mean, if the node is healthy and if it says that it doesn't have the disks mounted I suppose that you could trust it. That's why fencing is by default done only in case a resource can't be stopped. Of course, it is another matter if you think that the resource agents may lie or that something else in the setup can't be trusted. Thanks, Dejan > > regards, > > Johan > > _______________________________________________ > 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
