[Pacemaker] Fixed! - Re: Problem with dual-PDU fencing node with redundant PSUs

[Vladislav Bogdanov]

01.07.2013 15:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> 
> On 01/07/2013, at 10:06 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com> wrote:
> 
>> 01.07.2013 14:53, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2013, at 9:45 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 01.07.2013 14:14, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> I'm yet to be convinced that having two PDUs is helping those people in the first place.
>>>>>>> If it were actually useful, I suspect more than two/three people would have asked for it in the last decade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just silently waiting for this to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rarely a good plan.
>>>>
>>>> ok, then here is my +1 :)
>>>>
>>>>> Better to make my life so miserable that implementing it seems like a vacation in comparison :)
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I use different fencing scheme (and plan to use even more
>>>>>> different one), that is very nice fall-back path for me. And I strongly
>>>>>> prefer all complexities like reboot -> off-off-on-on to be hidden from
>>>>>> the configuration. Naturally, that is task for the entity which has
>>>>>> whole picture of what to do - stonithd. Just my 'IMHO'.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the tides of public opinion change, then yes, stonithd is the place.
>>>>
>>>> It would be natural.
>>>>
>>>>> But I can't justify the effort for only a handful of deployments.
>>>>
>>>> I do not use that only because I never used rgmanager, and that setup
>>>> was not supported in pacemaker. If it was, I'd build my clusters in a
>>>> different way, without need to reinvent a wheel. So, probably you may
>>>> look from the other side - nobody uses unimplemented features but
>>>> willing to use them once implemented.
>>>
>>> Yes, but people around here also tend to be quite vocal when they think something is missing.
>>> More so if its something critical.
>>
>> ok, that is not critical (for me), there are always ways to work around.
>> F.e. I plan (and I already did all hardware modifications, the only
>> remaining part is an agent) to sit on reset lines (like rcd_serial does)
>> with quido device from papouch (www.papouch.com) as a second-level
>> fencing mech in addition to ipmi.
>>
>> But, that would be nice to have feature if reboot command translation to
>> multiple devices is implemented. And I would use it.
> 
> Well its possible right now, it "just" not super pretty to configure.

I already set "Important" IMAP flag on that message and really willing
to copy that into my internal wiki ;)

> You should be able to leave out the location constraints though, that reduces the size a lot.

Yep, that requires a bit of thinking still.

> 
> And if people start using it, then we might look at simplifying it.

May be it's worth to have anonymous poll at clusterlabs.org for that?