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

[Andrew Beekhof]

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.