Il giorno Mar 20 Set 2011 17:54:58 CEST, Dejan Muhamedagic ha scritto: [...] >> And I completely agree with this, but in an environment like mine, where >> a single resource failure might involve all the others (with fence) is >> wronk to keep this kind of settings. Do you agree with me? > No. If the resource cannot stop, then something's wrong either > with the resource or with the RA. And needs to be fixed.
And this is for sure. But I cannot make all resources on a node stop and migrate (because of fence) just because one of them has failed. Those resources are not connected one to each other, so it is more reasonable to keep the survived resources alive, or at least live migrating them (on-fail=standby) to the other node and THEN reboot the first one. [...] > If a resource fails to stop, then on-fail="stop" cannot possibly > help. Furthermore, you basically make this resource less > available (the cluster won't try to recover it). Must be that > I'm missing something. > At any rate, I don't think that you need to fiddle with the > on-fail attribute, but see what's wrong with the RA or libvirt > or the combination of the two. > Thanks, > Dejan Then my question is why the attribute on-fail was created? I repeat, I totally agree with the fact that there are some problems with the RA but until I find out exactly what's wrong I had to take care of all my cluster's resources and so the most reasonable thing is to keep one single failed vm stopped. Thanks, -- RaSca Mia Mamma Usa Linux: Niente รจ impossibile da capire, se lo spieghi bene! [email protected] http://www.miamammausalinux.org _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
