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

[Andrew Beekhof]

Is "How important is the ability to use redundant PDUs for fencing?" better?

On 02/07/2013, at 3:30 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com> wrote:

> 02.07.2013 03:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> 
>> On 02/07/2013, at 8:51 AM, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 01/07/2013, at 10:19 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 01.07.2013 15:10, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> I'll try and put one up today
>> 
>> http://clusterlabs.org/polls/
> 
> IMHO poll question there differs from what we discuss here.
> Probably it is very hard to transform this issue into just one question
> without loosing some important details.
> 
> For me, example of redundant fencing devices are IPMI and PDU. Use one
> OR other = redundancy. This is already supported with fencing_topology.
> 
> PSU/PDU/circuit pairs are different from that. Use one AND another. I
> would not say it is "redundant fencing device". Probably you can replace
> that poll question with "How important is support for multi-<something>
> fencing devices (like redundant PDUs)". Can't find adequate term tough.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> 
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org