even if all three nodes are trying to reset the errant node, dont you think it would be better if a node would have informed other 2 members after fencing the errant node that i have successfully stonith the errant node. it will save other 2 nodes in putting extra effort in fencing the errant node again.
i think it's even better to elect one node among three nodes for stonithing the errant node and if it fails to stonith then second node should be given a chance. do you see any problem with this approach . one thing more related to stonith design. suppose we have 4 nodes cluster so do we need 3 stonith on each node ( to make a node eligible to kill any of other 3 nodes ) that will lead to 3x4 stoniths or do we need only one stonith on each node that will be total 4 stoniths. Thanks Andrew for your help.. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Andrew Beekhof <beek...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 05:09, Romi Verma <romi3rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for reply Dejan, > >> > >> No, there is no coordination between nodes. All of them will try > >> to reset the node. > > > > if All of them will try then dont you think it can lead to multiple > reset? > > it's not good right?? > > Far better than corrupted data. > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list > Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker >
_______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
