> >> > >> 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? >
Hi Digimer, first when seeing this behaviour there was version 1.1.8. This weekend I've updated to 1.1.10 (latest available with CentOS 6.5) and now I see that fence_pcmk1 is started at pcmk1 and fence_pcmk2 at pcmk2. Is that correct? To my (probably wrong) understanding it should be vice-versa, shouldn't it? br, christian _______________________________________________ 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
