On 08/12/13 07:54, Masopust, Christian wrote: > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Digimer [mailto:li...@alteeve.ca] >> Gesendet: Freitag, 06. Dezember 2013 17:20 >> An: m...@sys4.de; The Pacemaker cluster resource manager >> Betreff: Re: [Pacemaker] configuration of stonith >> >> >> If you're using 1.1.10+, >> >> pcs stonith create fence_pcmk1_ipmi fence_ipmilan \ >> pcmk_host_list="pcmk-1" ipaddr="pcmk-1.ipmi" \ >> action="reboot" login="admin" passwd="secret" delay=15 \ >> op monitor interval=60s >> >> pcs stonith create fence_pcmk2_ipmi fence_ipmilan \ >> pcmk_host_list="pcmk-2" ipaddr="pcmk-2.ipmi" \ >> action="reboot" login="admin" passwd="secret" delay=15 \ >> op monitor interval=60s >> >> is sufficient. >> > > Hi, > > just two questions about setting these stonith: > > - shouldn't the delay's be different to avoid a stonith-battle?
As Emmanuel said, yes, it is needed to avoid dual-fencing in two-node clusters, though the issue is not restricted to rhcs (or any HA clustering that allows two nodes). The node with the 'delay="15"' will have a 15 second head-start, so in a network partition triggered fence, the node with the delay should always live and the node without the delay will be immediately fenced. > - when creating these stonith I see them both started on one single > node. Don't I need some location constraints? Such that "fence_pcmk1" > only runs on pcmk2 and vice versa? What version of pacemaker are you using? -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ 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
