On 28/06/2013, at 8:46 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote:
> On 2013-06-28T20:21:22, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > >>> It looks correct, but not quite sane. ;-) That seems not to be >>> something you can address, though. I'm thinking that fencing topology >>> should be smart enough to, if multiple fencing devices are specified, to >>> know how to expand them to "first all off (if off fails anywhere, it's a >>> failure), then all on (if on fails, it is not a failure)". That'd >>> greatly simplify the syntax. >> The RH agents have apparently already been updated to support multiple ports. >> I'm really not keen on having the stonith-ng doing this. > > I'd agree, but it's not multiple ports on the same device, it's multiple > ports on *different* devices. I don't think a single fencing agent can > handle that - it really looks like something only the higher level can > cope with. True, it wouldn't handle that case but the case itself seems needlessly complex to me. Particularly since we've gotten by until very recently with single devices. _______________________________________________ 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
