> On 13 Aug 2015, at 11:36 pm, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> Kostiantyn Ponomarenko <[email protected]> schrieb am >>>> 13.08.2015 > um 13:39 in Nachricht > <caenth0fxlzwzw4jmoyk_go0w9o6e2gdd-zfdfohzrahwcgv...@mail.gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> Brief description of the STONITH problem: >> >> I see two different behaviors with two different STONITH configurations. If >> Pacemaker cannot find a device that can STONITH a problematic node, the >> node remains up and running. Which is bad, because it must be STONITHed. > > Correct observation. I wonder whether cloning a STONITH resource would help;
no > for a symmetric STONITH like SBD any node can fence any other node at the > same time. Still pacemaker waits for the stonith resource (wich is something > different than SBD) is confirmed running on one node (hard to get if one node > with the STONITH resource in a two-node cluster went down unexpectedly). > >> As opposite to it, if Pacemaker finds a device that, it thinks, can STONITH >> a problematic node, even if the device actually cannot, Pacemaker goes down >> after STONITH returns false positive. The Pacemaker shutdowns itself right >> after STONITH. >> Is it the expected behavior? > > I'd surprised if it were. > >> Do I need to configure a two more STONITH agents for just rebooting nodes >> on which they are running (e.g. with # reboot -f)? > > Good question ;-) > > [...] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list: [email protected] > http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
