Andrew Beekhof schrieb:
Not if the power loss includes power loss to the stonith device (which
as you said, is what happens in your case).
The only real solution is to add a stonith mechanism that doesn't have
this design problem (possibly in addition to the existing one).
Unfortunately, anything else leaves you as vulnerable as if stonith
wasn't enabled in the first place.
Hi Andrew,
you must be more precise: "...as vulnerable to a total power failure of
a node as if stonith wasn't enabled in the first place."
You get a reward of enabling this stonith device compared to have no
stonith at all, don't you? :-)
(e.g. software bugs, ressource overload, network failures of
heartbeat-link)
This special scenario of power outage of one node is IMHO not very
likely in a productive HA environment.
Why? Every node has two power supplies. Every power supply is connected
to an extra APS which is
connected to an extra power line. Every power supply is monitored for
failure to be replaced in time.
If you can't or don't want to afford this kind of redundancy you have to
live with a service outage in that
special scenario.
But to nail it down: Everything is better than mounting a regular
filesystem from more than one node!! :-)
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
