On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Alain.Moulle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> sorry but I don't fully understand : >> > >> > ?- I don't think there is any "fencing" functionnality in the OCFS2 >> > management, >> >> >> there is suicide, but that is unrelated to my point >> > Ok I didn't not know, but this could not be disturbing for Pacemaker , > could it ?
very > It's quite as if one node crashes for another reason, from Pacemaker > point of view ... >> >>> > ? so for me the membership information remains only at >>> > Pacemaker/corosync level. >>> >> >> no, ocfs2 also has its own notion of who its peers are - how else does >> it know who to talk to. >> >> > Yes I know that, it is set in the /etc/ocfs2/cluster.conf, but if one node > crashes or if Pacemaker decides to fence a node, then the ocfs2 cluster > knows via its own heartbeat that the peer node is no more alive, again > I'm sorry but I don't understand where is exactly the problem ... I don't > mean there is not a problem, but I don't catch it ... A bunch of filesystem guys and cluster guys got together and thought through all the corners cases[1] that were possible and decided that having a resource manager in charge of a cluster FS that was using an internal membership implementation simply wasn't supportable. If you want to understand that decision, then you'll need to start googling the various mailing lists. [1] Not just when everything works smoothly _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
