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

[Digimer]

On 07/01/2013 07:53 AM, 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.

<digimer whistles innocently...>

-- 
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?