On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic<[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 07:33:19PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> 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? > > Well, the idea was not to drop fencing, but to get a proper > device.
But that was exactly what he was asking... "Is ssh better than nothing?" Without question ssh is the worst possible stonith option, but on balance I still maintain its better than turning off stonith completely. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
