[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Cluster-devel] unfencing



On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 12:40 -0600, David Teigland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:31:29PM +0100, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> > Given this last example, a reasonable unfence operation would be to try
> > to poweron via apc too.
> > 
> > There is no guarantee that it was only method="1" fencing the node and
> > the node could be powered off.
> > 
> > if we succeed in enabling the switch port, we still don't guarantee that
> > the node will come back because of lack of power..
> > 
> > How do we protect a node that failed to be fenced, from being unfenced?
> > 
> > Example 2:
> > both method="1" and method="2" fail to fence node X.
> > At this point any unfence operation is extremely dangerous.
> 
> A node unfences *itself* when it boots up.  As such, power-unfencing doesn't
> make sense; unfencing is only meant to reverse storage fencing.

What can stop a user to run fence_node -U from another node to do remote
(un)fencing?

How do we address the problem of nodes booting from that same shared
storage?

Fabio


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]