On 04.08.2022 16:06, Lentes, Bernd wrote: > > ----- On 4 Aug, 2022, at 00:27, Reid Wahl nw...@redhat.com wrote: > >> >> Such constraints are unnecessary. >> >> Let's say we have two stonith devices called "fence_dev1" and >> "fence_dev2" that fence nodes 1 and 2, respectively. If node 2 needs >> to be fenced, and fence_dev2 is running on node 2, node 1 will still >> use fence_dev2 to fence node 2. The current location of the stonith >> device only tells us which node is running the recurring monitor >> operation for that stonith device. The device is available to ALL >> nodes, unless it's disabled or it's banned from a given node. So these >> constraints serve no purpose in most cases. > > Would do you mean by "banned" ? "crm resource ban ..." ? > Is that something different than a location constraint ? >
"crm resource ban" creates location constraint, but not every location constraint is created by "crm resource ban". >> If you ban fence_dev2 from node 1, then node 1 won't be able to use >> fence_dev2 to fence node 2. Likewise, if you ban fence_dev1 from node >> 1, then node 1 won't be able to use fence_dev1 to fence itself. >> Usually that's unnecessary anyway, but it may be preferable to power >> ourselves off if we're the last remaining node and a stop operation >> fails. > So banning a fencing device from a node means that this node can't use the > fencing device ? > Correct. Node where fencing device is not allowed cannot be selected to use this fencing device to perform fencing. _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
