Hi, Dejan and Andrew

Thank you for opinions.
I would like to refer to your opinion.

Thanks,

Yoshihiko SATO

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 06:18:50PM +0900, Yoshihiko SATO wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks reply.
>>
>> How about the check with ping in ibmrsa-telnet?
> 
> No, sorry, results of ping are not considered to reliably
> determine the state.
> 
>> Of course, it is invalid in default.
>> It is the same as SSH plugin.
> 
> Yes, it's just that ssh is used only for testing and the ping
> part got introduced to make testing faster.
> 
>> is it no good?
> 
> Basically, no, unless testing. Even here it's not enabled by
> default.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dejan
> 
>> though I understand that it is not enough...
>>
>> I would like to hear any opinion.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yoshihiko SATO
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Yoshihiko-san,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 05:15:56PM +0900, Yoshihiko SATO wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have two node cluster in active/passive mode with stonith.
>>>>> STONITH plugin : ibmrsa-telnet
>>>>>
>>>>> When the power supply of active node (with RSA device) was
>>>>> turned off, it don't STONITH.  So it don't failover. (the
>>>>> resource don't start) However, I hope to start failover if the
>>>>> RSA device is stopping.  For example, The SSH plugin avoids
>>>>> this problem by the "livedangerously" parameter.
>>>> I thought that that name would scare anybody who cares about
>>>> their data :)
>>>>
>>>>> How can I implement it?
>>>> We don't have such a thing. Somebody posted a while ago a link to
>>>> SGI's failsafe sources where they implemented a rather elaborate
>>>> scheme with which it was possible to use some heuristics to
>>>> figure out if the node is without power. It may work and it may
>>>> be a worthy addition to our fencing solution (providing that it's
>>>> turned off by default). Though I personally wouldn't trust such
>>>> witchcraft ;-)
>>> Agreed. I would never use it personally, but I've no objection to it
>>> being added if a) someone else writes the patch and b) its disabled by
>>> default :-)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to