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

[Vladislav Bogdanov]

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.