On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Peter Kruse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Peter Kruse <[email protected]> wrote: >>> You are saying that it is okay that a single failure can bring the cluster >>> in a unsolvable situation? I thought "SPoF" would be the bad word. >>> Because that's what it is. >> >> Its a very bad word, but the SPoF is very clearly the hardware here. >> >> I understand that there are many reasons to want these integrated >> power switches to work in a clustered environment, but they don't. >> We all know they don't, but we come up with complex algorithms so that >> we can pretend that they do. > > great, I thought they were the recommended stonith devices? Are they not?
Any switch that shares power with the host(s) it controls clearly has a SPoF. You don't need me to tell you that. The scenario they don't work in might be acceptably unlikely for most people, but the risk is there. However, as I keep saying, I've no objection an option that implements the failsafe algorithm (and documents the reason it exists) > Obviously not, so please do not mention them in the documentation > (coming back to the topic ...). Or if you put it in the documentation > then also say that it's not recommended because they do not work. Which particular documentation are you referring to? I've not personally written any on stonith. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
