On 2013-07-01T21:37:38, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote:
> > And apparently, this is one of the scenarios for which fence topology
> > was created and supports multiple devices per level. I'd venture the
> > opinion that the current implementation of "multiple devices per level"
> > is broken (since it requires work-arounds like digimer posted).
>
> No, it was designed for things like:
>
> http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1-pcs/html/Pacemaker_Explained/_advanced_fencing_configurations.html
Yeah, I read that.
But even for 'disk and network' as per your example, handling of the
"reboot" parameter is broken for levels with multiple devices; one could
argue that those only make sense with "off", yes, but rebooting via
mechanism A and then B?
> > And on you to support. ;-)
> Far easier to support this than extra code to do it automagically.
Not sure. Essentially it's about expanding the level line for "reboot"
automatically (into "all off, perhaps some/all on"). Doesn't really
strike me as so difficult. (For action="off", multiple devices will just
work fine already.)
And I have a comment that, while I don't feel strongly about it, just
popped into my eyes - the comma separated list is impossible to validate
via an XML id check. (Because clearly one should only allow devices that
are actually defined?) Should that be split into multiple elements?
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
