[Pacemaker] Proposed new stonith topology syntax

[Digimer]

On 01/03/2012 01:19 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Does anyone have an opinion on the following schema and example?
> I'm not a huge fan of the index field, but nor am I of making it
> sensitive to order (like groups).
> 
> Please keep in mind that the new topology section is optional and
> would only be defined if:
>  - you wanted to specify the order in which multiple devices were tried, or
>  - if multiple devices need to be triggered for the node to be
> considered fenced.
> 
> Most people will /NOT/ need to add this section to their configuration.

A common configuration (at least in my world) is to use IPMI/iLO/etc +
switched PDU for fencing. When ever possible, the IPMI fencing should be
primary device, because it has the ability to confirm a node's "off"
state making it more trustworthy than fencing via PDU.

When a PDU is needed though (ie: node lost it's PSU so the BMC is down),
with redundant power supplies, two separate PDUs need to both
successfully cut power to consider the fence complete.

I mention this to show that ordered and multiple device fencing isn't
that unusual. :)

> -- Andrew
> 
> <fencing-topology>
>   <!-- pcmk-0 requires the devices named disk + network to complete -->
>   <fencing-rule id="f-p0" node="pcmk-0">
>     <device id-ref="disk"/>
>     <device id-ref="network"/>
>   </fencing-rule>
> 
>   <!-- pcmk-1 needs either the poison-pill or power device to complete
> successfully -->
>   <fencing-rule id="f-p1.1" node="pcmk-1" index="1" device="poison-pill"/>
>   <fencing-rule id="f-p1.2" node="pcmk-1" index="2" device="power">
> 
>   <!-- pcmk-1 needs either the disk and network devices to complete
> successfully OR the device named power -->
>   <fencing-rule id="f-p2.1" node="pcmk-2" index="1">
>     <device id-ref="disk"/>
>     <device id-ref="network"/>
>   </fencing-rule>
>   <fencing-rule id="f-p2.2" node="pcmk-2" index="2" device="power"/>
> 
> </fencing-topology>
> 
> Conforming to:
> 
>   <define name="element-stonith">
>     <element name="fencing-topology">
>       <zeroOrMore>
> 	<ref name="element-fencing"/>
>       </zeroOrMore>
>     </element>
>   </define>
> 
>   <define name="element-fencing">
>     <element name="fencing-rule">
>       <attribute name="id"><data type="ID"/></attribute>
>       <attribute name="node"><text/></attribute>
>       <attribute name="index"><text/></attribute>
>       <choice>
> 	<attribute name="device"><text/></attribute>	
> 	<zeroOrMore>
>  	  <element name="device">
> 	    <attribute name="id-ref"><data type="IDREF"/></attribute>
> 	  </element>
> 	</zeroOrMore>
>       </choice>
>     </element>
>   </define>
> 
> </grammar>

I wish I was more familiar with pacemaker to make an intelligent
comment. However, this looks good to me. I don't see an example of a
multi-port fence device, but I am assuming that's abstracted away for
the simplicity of the example?

Cheers!

-- 
Digimer
E-Mail:              digimer at alteeve.com
Freenode handle:     digimer
Papers and Projects: http://alteeve.com
Node Assassin:       http://nodeassassin.org
"omg my singularity battery is dead again.
stupid hawking radiation." - epitron