Is "How important is the ability to use redundant PDUs for fencing?" better?
On 02/07/2013, at 3:30 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: > 02.07.2013 03:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> On 02/07/2013, at 8:51 AM, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 01/07/2013, at 10:19 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 01.07.2013 15:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And if people start using it, then we might look at simplifying it. >>>> >>>> May be it's worth to have anonymous poll at clusterlabs.org for that? >>> >>> I'll try and put one up today >> >> http://clusterlabs.org/polls/ > > IMHO poll question there differs from what we discuss here. > Probably it is very hard to transform this issue into just one question > without loosing some important details. > > For me, example of redundant fencing devices are IPMI and PDU. Use one > OR other = redundancy. This is already supported with fencing_topology. > > PSU/PDU/circuit pairs are different from that. Use one AND another. I > would not say it is "redundant fencing device". Probably you can replace > that poll question with "How important is support for multi-<something> > fencing devices (like redundant PDUs)". Can't find adequate term tough. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
