Hi, On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:04:22AM +0200, Peter Kruse 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? > 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.
I tried to list all devices which manage host's power and may be used for fencing. I also tried to describe their deficiencies. None of the devices are "recommended" really as that depends on particular circumstances. Thanks, Dejan > Peter > _______________________________________________ > 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
