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

Re: [Cluster-devel] cluster4 dlm dlm_stonith ??? should it really fence by turning node off?

On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:10:17AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 03:58:28PM +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > The dlm_stonith fencing helper is really convenient when Pacemaker is in
> > use. Though, it doesn't quite work as I would expect ??? when fencing 
> > is needed it requests a node to be turned off instead of rebooting. And
> > it doesn't handle unfencing ??? so automatic recovery is not possible
> > (rebooted node could join the cluster cleanly later, provided quorum
> > handling is properly configured in the cluster stack).
> > 
> > Preferably this behaviour should be configurable. I have hacked a
> > work-around by (ab)using argv[0] ??? when 'dlm_stonith' is called as
> > 'dlm_stonith_reboot' the node would be rebooted instead of halting 
> > ??? this works for me well-enough, but I don't think this is the right
> > solution.
> Could you send the patch?  Do you think the patch is not right or reboot
> is not right?  If the later, what do you think is wrong with reboot?

I don't like the patch as probably it would be better to use extra
argument to the dlm_stonith invokation in the dlm_controld file. I did 
not fix it that way, as I was not sure how arguments are supposed to be
passed from dlm_controld configuration file to the fencing handlers.
I'll sent the patch anyway.

If reboot is wrong – I have assumed the 'off' was chosen for purpose and
that my attempt to make it reboot instead could be a mistake. Though, I
found no reason why reboot would be worse.


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