On 29/06/2013, at 12:22 AM, Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote: > On 06/28/2013 06:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> On 28/06/2013, at 5:22 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2013-06-27T12:53:01, Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> primitive fence_n01_psu1_off stonith:fence_apc_snmp \ >>>> params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="off" port="1" >>>> pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca" >>>> primitive fence_n01_psu1_on stonith:fence_apc_snmp \ >>>> params ipaddr="an-p01" pcmk_reboot_action="on" port="1" >>>> pcmk_host_list="an-c03n01.alteeve.ca" >>> >>> So every device twice, including location constraints? I see potential >>> for optimization by improving how the fence code handles this ... That's >>> abhorrently complex. (And I'm not sure the 'action' parameter ought to >>> be overwritten.) >> >> I'm not crazy about it either because it means the device is tied to a >> specific command. >> But it seems to be something all the RHCS people try to do... > > Maybe something in the rhcs water cooler made us all mad... ;) > >>> Glad you got it working, though. >>> >>>> location loc_fence_n01_ipmi fence_n01_ipmi -inf: an-c03n01.alteeve.ca >>> [...] >>> >>> I'm not sure you need any of these location constraints, by the way. Did >>> you test if it works without them? >>> >>>> Again, this is after just one test. I will want to test it several more >>>> times before I consider it reliable. Ideally, I would love to hear >>>> Andrew or others confirm this looks sane/correct. >>> >>> 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. > > This doesn't help people who have dual power rails/PDUs for power > redundancy.
I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in the first place. If it were actually useful, I suspect more than two/three people would have asked for it in the last decade. > (Unless I am missing something, I'll re-read the > fence_apc_snmp agent man page/metadata to confirm). > > -- > 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
