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

[Digimer]

On 07/01/2013 07:26 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> Yes, but RHEL isn't the only Enterprise distro out there.
> Its not like Pacemaker has never been deployed in critical environments during the last decade.
> 
> German Air Traffic Control (http://www.novell.com/success/dfs.html) for example.
> Will planes fall out of the sky if your cluster fails?

I don't think Florian or I implied that pacemaker is not suitable for
enterprise use. I've recommended many people use it and I certainly
would not have done that if I did not think it was ready.

You know that RHEL is going to push over to pacemaker soon. It's fair
for us who are going to move with it to want to be able to port our way
of doing things when that happens. That is what this is about. It's not
"wrong" to have just one fence method, but it is also not unreasonable
to want two.

All this is largely a question of "optimization" anyway, because
pacemaker now does support this. So I think we're arguing over nothing
too important. Sure, it will be nice if stonith someday handles dual-PDU
fencing more cleanly, but it's also not a big deal to just use it the
way it works now. So long as it is documented, the RHEL migrants will be
fine.

-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?