On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 15:29:06 +0200 Klaus Wenninger <kwenn...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 2:40 PM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <j...@dalibo.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:10:04 +0200 > > Klaus Wenninger <kwenn...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 12:56 PM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais < > > > j...@dalibo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > […] > > * to have faster cluster reactions in some circumstances > > > > In some circumstances is true ;-) ;-) > In general the fencing side will have to wait because it might fall back to > the device being taken down by the watchdog and that isn't any faster as with > watchdog-fencing. Yes > If the target is able to read the poison-pill it will probably reboot kind of > instantaneously. But the fencing side will still have to wait. OK, that's where I was kind of suspicious about my memories. Thanks. > Probably not even the node coming back will speed up things as fencing > will still be pending. But of course the time in between can be used for > startup of the fenced node and it will be available to run services - if a > reboot recovers it. OK, not what I was thinking about, but a good take away. Thanks! And thank you for your effort trying to find some bit of truth in my vaguely formulated point :-) Regards, _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
