[Pacemaker] Three questions...

[Romi Verma]

Thanks for reply Dejan,
>
>
> No, there is no coordination between nodes. All of them will try
> to reset the node.
>

if All of them will try then dont you think it can lead to multiple reset?
it's not good right??

>
> Thanks,
>
> Dejan
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:07:18AM +0530, Romi Verma wrote:
> > > > Dejan please reply , how do we set priority??
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Andrew Beekhof <beekhof at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:38, Romi Verma <romi3rdfeb at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks a lot Andrew for your reply,
> > > > > > i have another question on stonith. i have configured sbd stonith
> and
> > > > > riloe
> > > > > > stonith.  can i set the order of execution. say i want riloe to
> get
> > > > > executed
> > > > > > first and if it fails then sbd to get executed. should i set
> > > priority??
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you can, but dejan has the details on how
> > >
> > > Set the priority attribute for the stonith resource (small
> > > integer). Resources with lower priority start earlier.
> > >
> > > This works only with pacemaker v1.x.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Dejan
> > >
> > > > > > it seems to me that suse 11 follows "or" approach , like if one
> > > stonith
> > > > > > fails then only execute another stonith. is there any way to make
> it
> > > > > "and" ,
> > > > >
> > > > > no, thats generally a bad idea and results in worse reliability
> than a
> > > > > single device.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > i mean to say even if first stonith pass , execute second also .
> > > > > >  you may feel that there is no need to to execute second stonith
> if
> > > first
> > > > > > was successful . But just for my curiosity i want to know is it
> > > possible
> > > > > or
> > > > > > not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks again
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> Pacemaker mailing list
> > > > > >> Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> > > > > >> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Pacemaker mailing list
> > > > > > Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> > > > > > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Pacemaker mailing list
> > > > > Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> > > > > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Pacemaker mailing list
> > > > Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> > > > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pacemaker mailing list
> > > Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> > > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> > >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pacemaker mailing list
> > Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>
>
> --
> Dejan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list
> Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20090313/82501533/attachment-0002.htm>