On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> wrote:
> After some short thinking I find that using ssh as STONITH is probably the > wrong thing to do, because it can never STONITH if the target is down already. > > Maybe some shared storage and a mechanism like sbd is the way to go. > With everything VMs, shared storage shouldn't be a problem. Sadly I'm stuck with what I've got, which is just network connectivity to the hypervisors - which is all fence_virsh needs - and connectivity to the ILO 'lights out' controllers for the hypervisors (which fence_ilo can use. I should have mentioned that the physical machines are HP machines with ILO controllers.) It seems reasonable to me that one could want a cluster to use an ordered set of STONITH agents if a cluster node goes down; in my case: + try and use fence_virsh to shut down the VM; otherwise + try and use fence_ilo to shut down the entire hypervisor Can pacemaker do this? Have an ordered/prioritized list of STONITH resources? > So if your VMs fail because the host failed, the cluster will see the > loss of comunication, will try to fence the affected VMs (to be sure > they are down), and then start to rerun failed resources. Right? Yes. At the moment this will all happen only if the fencing succeeds. As per my Q2, I'd like this to happen even if the chain of STONITH resources _weren't_ successful in getting through. I'm content to accept a split-brain situation in preference to the application being unavailable entirely. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
