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

[Andrew Beekhof]

On 28/06/2013, at 8:46 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.com> wrote:

> On 2013-06-28T20:21:22, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
> 
>>> It looks correct, but not quite sane. ;-) That seems not to be
>>> something you can address, though. I'm thinking that fencing topology
>>> should be smart enough to, if multiple fencing devices are specified, to
>>> know how to expand them to "first all off (if off fails anywhere, it's a
>>> failure), then all on (if on fails, it is not a failure)". That'd
>>> greatly simplify the syntax.
>> The RH agents have apparently already been updated to support multiple ports.
>> I'm really not keen on having the stonith-ng doing this.
> 
> I'd agree, but it's not multiple ports on the same device, it's multiple
> ports on *different* devices. I don't think a single fencing agent can
> handle that - it really looks like something only the higher level can
> cope with.

True, it wouldn't handle that case but the case itself seems needlessly complex to me.
Particularly since we've gotten by until very recently with single devices.