[Pacemaker] Proposed new stonith topology syntax

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:09:56PM +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:58:20PM +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:19:14PM +1100, 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).
>> >> >
>> >> > What is wrong with order in XML elements? It seems like a very
>> >> > clear way to express order to me.
>> >>
>> >> Because we end up with the same update issues as for groups.
>> >
>> > OK.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> > Is there a possibility to express
>> >> > fencing nodes simultaneously?
>> >>
>> >> No.  Its regular boolean shortcut semantics.
>> >
>> > As digimer mentioned, it is one common use case, i.e. for hosts
>> > with multiple power supplies. So far, we recommended lights-out
>> > devices for such hardware configurations and if those are
>> > monitored and more or less reliable such a setup should be fine.
>> > It would still be good to have a way to express it if some day
>> > somebody actually implements it. I guess that the schema can be
>> > easily extended by adding a "simultaneous" attribute to the
>> > "fencing-rule" element.
>>
>> So in the example below, you'd want the ability to not just trigger
>> the 'disk' and 'network' devices, but the ability to trigger them at
>> the same time?
>
> Right.

For any particular reason?  Or just in case?