> > There are thousands of interactions with power fencing and every one
> > of them needs to work perfectly for power fencing to work.
> Thats not the problem.
> Its the false positives you need to worry about (devices that report
> success when power fencing failed).
> When power fencing fails healthy nodes get some sort of indication and
> can take appropriate action.
> If suicide fails, um...

Ok, for that reason power fencing is better. 

But what I've heard so far is that many users do not understand
why fencing is required, and worse, they do not configure and test
it correctly.

So the question is if we can combine those approaches? Or is that
mutual exclusive for some reason?

- Dietmar

Openais mailing list

Reply via email to