On 06/28/2013 09:28 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > 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?).
I preach this configuration to anyone who will listen. A few may have joined the flock. ;) > 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. NO NO NO NO. Please do not remove this. I can not use pacemaker unless I can keep the power rails redundant. What we have now may not be elegant, but it works. I would be a very sad panda if this functionality was removed. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ 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
