On 2013-06-28T10:27:54, Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote:
> > Basically, unless we can do this better, having multiple devices per
> > fence topology level needs to be considered broken and might be better
> > removed.
> NO NO NO NO.
>
> Please do not remove this. I can not use pacemaker unless I can keep the
> power rails redundant. What we have now may not be elegant, but it
> works. I would be a very sad panda if this functionality was removed.
It was a bit tongue-in-cheek. But the syntax is so horrible that forcing
it on users *is* broken; requiring this kludge when *all* fencing
topologies specifying multiple devices per level will need this is not
good and a support nightmare.
Also, it is *not* working fine for you, or is it? What happens when one
of your fence devices cannot be turned on again?
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
