[Pacemaker] configuration of stonith

[Masopust, Christian]

> >>
> >> If you're using 1.1.10+,
> >>
> >> pcs stonith create fence_pcmk1_ipmi fence_ipmilan \
> >>     pcmk_host_list="pcmk-1" ipaddr="pcmk-1.ipmi" \
> >>     action="reboot" login="admin" passwd="secret" delay=15 \
> >>     op monitor interval=60s
> >>
> >> pcs stonith create fence_pcmk2_ipmi fence_ipmilan \
> >>     pcmk_host_list="pcmk-2" ipaddr="pcmk-2.ipmi" \
> >>     action="reboot" login="admin" passwd="secret" delay=15 \
> >>     op monitor interval=60s
> >>
> >> is sufficient.
> >>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > just two questions about setting these stonith:
> > 
> > - shouldn't the delay's be different to avoid a stonith-battle?
> 
> As Emmanuel said, yes, it is needed to avoid dual-fencing in two-node
> clusters, though the issue is not restricted to rhcs (or any HA
> clustering that allows two nodes).
> 
> The node with the 'delay="15"' will have a 15 second 
> head-start, so in a
> network partition triggered fence, the node with the delay 
> should always
> live and the node without the delay will be immediately fenced.
> 
> > - when creating these stonith I see them both started on one single
> >   node. Don't I need some location constraints?  Such that 
> "fence_pcmk1"
> >   only runs on pcmk2 and vice versa?
> 
> What version of pacemaker are you using?
> 

Hi Digimer,

first when seeing this behaviour there was version 1.1.8. This weekend
I've updated to 1.1.10 (latest available with CentOS 6.5) and now I see
that fence_pcmk1 is started at pcmk1 and fence_pcmk2 at pcmk2.
Is that correct? To my (probably wrong) understanding it should be vice-versa,
shouldn't it?

br,
christian