On 13-02-24 07:56 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > Basically yes. > Stonith is the first stage of recovery and supposed to be at least > vaguely reliable. > Have you figured out why fencing is so broken?
It wasn't really "broken" but was in the process of being configured when this situation arose. The set up hadn't gotten to configuring the stonith resource yet. > Part of the problem is that 2-node clusters have no concept of quorum, > so they can get a bit trigger-happy in the name of data-integrity. > If Pacemaker were to shut down in this case, it would be leaving > things (as far as it can tell) in an inconsistent state which is > likely result in bad things later on - there's not much point in > "highly available corrupted data". Fair enough I suppose. It's a corner case that one wants/needs to try to avoid then. :-/ Cheers, b.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
