On 2013-06-28T21:01:55, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote:
> > 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.
Well, I'm inclined to agree, but it seems that digimer's use case is
also valid, and apparently quite widespread (especially for RHEL
users?).
And I certainly don't want to be the one validating configurations like
the one she posted ;-)
Basically, unless we can do this better, having multiple devices per
fence topology level needs to be considered broken and might be better
removed.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
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
