On 2013-06-28T20:21:22, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote:
> > It looks correct, but not quite sane. ;-) That seems not to be
> > something you can address, though. I'm thinking that fencing topology
> > should be smart enough to, if multiple fencing devices are specified, to
> > know how to expand them to "first all off (if off fails anywhere, it's a
> > failure), then all on (if on fails, it is not a failure)". That'd
> > greatly simplify the syntax.
> The RH agents have apparently already been updated to support multiple ports.
> I'm really not keen on having the stonith-ng doing this.
I'd agree, but it's not multiple ports on the same device, it's multiple
ports on *different* devices. I don't think a single fencing agent can
handle that - it really looks like something only the higher level can
cope with.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
