On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@novell.com> wrote: > Hi, > > this is about a new setting for stonith mode. > > Basically, a node failure would not cause a fence - the node would be > trusted to be truly down and have self-fenced. (Certain hardware > infrastructures can guarantee this, and also drive the probability of > split-communication down to be neglible; or the issue of re-syncing the > data be considered acceptably solved (drbd).) > > However, fencing would still be welcome for error cleanup (say, stop > failures). > > Do others think this would be a useful idea?
No objection here. > > An alternative route could be to implement a STONITH plugin that returns > success if the node is missing from the membership layer, and "pass" if > it is present (thus invoking the next STONITH plugin in the priority > list). But I think the PE-approach would be cleaner. > > > Regards, > Lars > > -- > Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc. > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) > "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde > > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: > http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker > _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
