On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.de> wrote: > On 2011-05-13T08:54:19, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > >> > No. Because starting/acquiring the resources would still depend on a >> > "local" fence of the other side. This is protected against by our >> > regular dependencies already. >> > >> > Or am I missing something still? >> Possibly. >> Couldn't both sides start shooting each other until one looses the token? > > Not more than before, though I'd expect a side that freshly rebooted to > come up w/o any token. > > In general, the possibility for a fencing deathmatch is not different > than before, though.
I disagree. Before this, ignoring 2-node clusters for a moment, only one side has quorum which is normally a requirement for fencing to begin. With this, its more like no-quorum-policy=ignore where even a single node can start shooting. _______________________________________________ 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
