01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote: ... >>> I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in the >>> first place. >>> If it were actually useful, I suspect more than two/three people would have >>> asked for it in the last decade. >> >> I'm just silently waiting for this to happen. > > Rarely a good plan.
ok, then here is my +1 :) > Better to make my life so miserable that implementing it seems like a > vacation in comparison :) :) > >> Although I use different fencing scheme (and plan to use even more >> different one), that is very nice fall-back path for me. And I strongly >> prefer all complexities like reboot -> off-off-on-on to be hidden from >> the configuration. Naturally, that is task for the entity which has >> whole picture of what to do - stonithd. Just my 'IMHO'. > > If the tides of public opinion change, then yes, stonithd is the place. It would be natural. > But I can't justify the effort for only a handful of deployments. I do not use that only because I never used rgmanager, and that setup was not supported in pacemaker. If it was, I'd build my clusters in a different way, without need to reinvent a wheel. So, probably you may look from the other side - nobody uses unimplemented features but willing to use them once implemented. _______________________________________________ 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
