Hi, On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:09:01PM +0530, Glory Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As you said if CRM decides a node should be fenced it will be fenced and > > it > > > has nothing to do with sbd. > > > > Right. The decision itself has nothing to do with sbd. sbd is > > just an executioner. > > > > > so in this case cluster must need an another > > > stonith to provide fencing of errant node. is my understanding is > > correct. > > > > No. > > > > > can you explain a bit more , how CRM decide that a node should be fence ? > > is > > > it when node become unreachable.?? > > > > Yes. Also if a resource can't be stopped on that node. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Hi Dejan, > > Well i tried to configure sbd on two nodes cluster. it is not working > properly. need your view here. In split-brain situation both nodes are > trying to stonith each other and they have written "Reset" to each other's > slot also. (nodes name are tejas and toddy) > > tejas:~ # sbd -d /dev/sdd list > 0 tejas reset toddy > 1 toddy reset tejas > > Syslog is also saying that they have reset each other successfully. > > Feb 10 10:02:54 tejas stonithd: [9195]: info: Succeeded to STONITH the node > toddy: optype=RESET. whodoit: tejas > > Feb 10 10:03:55 toddy stonithd: [9195]: info: Succeeded to STONITH the node > tejas: optype=RESET. whodoit: toddy
This is expected. Only writing a "poison pill", which you see listed above, is enough to consider the node fenced. > But both nodes didn't reset actually. can you tell me why it happened. Nope. Did you follow http://www.linux-ha.org/SBD_Fencing? Is the sbd daemon running? Thanks, Dejan > Thanks, > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list > Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
