On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:58:19PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Terry L. >> Inzauro<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Ok. I am indeed using 'external/ssh' as the stonith device. I figure it >> > was better than nothing as I do not have access to >> > a hardware stonith device. In you opinion, is using the 'external/ssh' >> > plugin 'better' than NOT using a stonith plugin at all? >> >> personally, i think so. >> but there are plenty that disagree. > > Ah, that would include me :) > > If the stonith device fails to fence the failing node then there > is no failover and you get zero availability.
But at least your data isn't corrupt. What's the point of being up if you're serving up garbage? > The probability > that that happens is much higher when using a device such as > external/ssh since it depends on both the network availability > and the OS health. I'll leave it to you to figure out in how many > ways these two dependencies can hinder a fencing operation. > > Thanks, > > Dejan > > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
