[Pacemaker] AP9606 fencing device

[Dejan Muhamedagic]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 08:15:09PM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
> On 27 October 2010 19:46, Pavlos Parissis <pavlos.parissis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I did more testing using the clone type of fencing and worked as I
> > expected.
> >
> > test1 hack init script to return 1 on stop and run a crm resource move on
> > that resource
> > result node it was fenced and resource was started on the other node
> >
> > test2 using firewall to break the heartbeat links on node with resource
> > result node it was fenced and resource was started on the other node
> >
> > As Dejan suggested I am going to run the same type of tests when 1 fence
> > resource is used.
> > In this test I will try to cause a fencing on the node which has fencing
> > resource running on it and see if pacemaker moves the resource before it
> > fences the node.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I did the same tests without cloning and pacemaker moves fencing resource
> before triggers a reboot on the node where fencing resource was running.
> So, cloning fencing resource and having just one fence resource have the
> same behaviour! at least for these 2 tests.
> now I don't know which configuration solution I should choose!

Whichever you feel more comfortable with, providing that the
device really can support multiple connections simultaneously.
I'd opt for non-cloned version. It's simpler, it avoids possible
device contention.

Thanks,

Dejan


> Cheers,
> Pavlos

> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at 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://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker