Do you have an idea whats the best place to implement self fencing? Can
we simply use softdog inside the quorum service (to trigger a reboot
when we lose quorum? or is that too simple? Or is fenced the better place?
> > 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?
> It would be beneficial to have implementations that supported one or
> other or both models at the same time. Maximum flexibility for the
> user. Then the user can decide what their viewpoint is on reliability
> just as I have outlined in this previous thread. If they are super
> paranoid, they might use both. If they believe simplicity is superior,
> they might choose self fencing. If they feel that operating in a well
> defined operating environment with more complexity is better, they
> choose that.
> Currently there are two choices 1) power fencing 2) no fencing.
> > - Dietmar
Openais mailing list