[Pacemaker] RFC: What part of the XML configuration do you hate the most?

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2008-06-24T16:15:48, Andrew Beekhof <beekhof at gmail.com> wrote:

>> 6) node fencing when the connectivity failure is detected by pingd.
>>   Currently we have to have the pingd constrains for all resources.
>>   It woule be helpful to simplify the config and the recovery operation
>>   if we could configure the behavior as same as a resource failure.
>
> I think this could be easily done by creating a new mode for pingd - such 
> that it "fails" when all connectivity is lost.
> Then it would just be a matter of setting on_fail=fence for pingd's monitor 
> op.

This is moving towards node suicide; that's something which probably
should be handled a little bit differently, and also needs to take into
account whether all nodes see the loss of the ping nodes (in which case
fencing is a bit pointless), the partition of the node, etc.

Instead of seeing implementation requests, I would much rather see the
intended use case. (That holds for all of them.) One thing which we need
to get a lot better at is ensuring design consistency.


Regards,
    Lars

-- 
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde