Hi Lars, I forgot to say a very important thing.
The system which I intend for does not use STONITH. If STONITH enters, I do not become such a problem. I registered this demands with Bugzilla. (I write that I do not have any problem if I use STONITH.) Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi. --- Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-07-14T21:20:10, HIDEO YAMAUCHI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Lars, > > > > I'm sorry. > > I am not good at English. Regards, > > > > > But yes, it appears that the watchdog timeout should be less than > > > deadtime. > > However, the idea and I of you are the same. > > > > Can you reflect this demand? > > Or, should I register in Bugzilla? > > Sure, feel free to file a bugzilla. I could see setting it to 2/3 of > deadtime, for starters. > > But I don't see how it matters. It does not help protect data integrity, > as that is already served by fencing/stonith. > > A cluster not using STONITH is not supportable, and the watchdog timer > is not sufficient for self-fencing (suicide), as it is not tied to > quorum etc. > > What use case do you have where watchdog would actually help? > > > Regards, > Lars > > -- > Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG N将舐nberg) > "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems > _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
