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

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2008-06-27T14:23:51, Andrew Beekhof <beekhof at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Another case is Filesystem on a shared storage.
>> You should run fsck before mounting it on the failover-ed node
>> for the safety of the data if the filesystem was not umounted cleanly.
>> It would take a very long time particularly if the filesystem
>> is very large as used by a database.

BTW, this is not true. Journaled filesystems don't need to run fsck and
will recover within seconds.

>> Addition to this, there may be a risk of data loss if the power
>> was suddenly down.  Such risks may be neglected, but if there's
>> anything we can do to avoid or minimize such risks then we want
>> to take the steps for that.

There is no data loss due to the fencing. If this would lose data, the
system would be unable to properly recover from real node failures
anyway - no transactional system is losing data in such case.

The point about the database recovery times is somewhat valid, but
diminishes if there are additional stop failures (say, a timeout). In
that case, the attempt to stop will cause a much higher delay.

And the db recovery time would be incurred on a real node failure, too;
how is that acceptable?



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