Hi, On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 02:01:26AM +0100, Andreas Mock wrote: > Andrew Beekhof schrieb: >> Not if the power loss includes power loss to the stonith device (which >> as you said, is what happens in your case). >> The only real solution is to add a stonith mechanism that doesn't have >> this design problem (possibly in addition to the existing one). >> >> Unfortunately, anything else leaves you as vulnerable as if stonith >> wasn't enabled in the first place. >> > Hi Andrew, > > you must be more precise: "...as vulnerable to a total power failure of a > node as if stonith wasn't enabled in the first place." > You get a reward of enabling this stonith device compared to have no > stonith at all, don't you? :-)
Well, perhaps... > (e.g. software bugs, ressource overload, network failures of > heartbeat-link) > > This special scenario of power outage of one node is IMHO not very likely > in a productive HA environment. > Why? Every node has two power supplies. Every power supply is connected to > an extra APS which is > connected to an extra power line. Every power supply is monitored for > failure to be replaced in time. > If you can't or don't want to afford this kind of redundancy you have to > live with a service outage in that > special scenario. Indeed. Though I often doubt if people go all the way. Or, more precisely, people sometimes tend to think that having a cluster relaxes hardware requirements. > But to nail it down: Everything is better than mounting a regular > filesystem from more than one node!! :-) True. Thanks, Dejan > Best regards > Andreas Mock > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
