[Linux-HA] Question regarding the stonith resources
peinkofe at fhm.edu
peinkofe at fhm.edu
Mon Oct 31 02:16:43 MST 2005
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 09:37:18AM +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On 10/30/05, peinkofe at fhm.edu <peinkofe at fhm.edu> wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > I use two wti_nps stonith devices, kill_sarek and kill_spock. So in my cib.xml I have two stonith resources. Additionally I have two constraints which say that kill_sarek can only run on spock and kill_spock can only run on sarek.
> > In a recent mail on the list Peter Kruse said he uses one apc powerswitch and have the stonith resources configured as clones.
> > I noticed recently that sometimes, nodes want to stonith themselve, which of course doesn't work in my configuration.
> if both nodes are up then the stonithd is supposed to relay the
> request to the other node - so even in your configuration, spock can
> ask for itself to be shot.
> if spock is all alone - then you are correct - there is no-one to shoot it.
I think I remeber that there is a stonith device which calls for human intervention. Would it be possible to somehow define: try to kill a node with the wti_nps stonith resource, and if wti_nps is not started (or wti_nps failed) use the human intervention resource.
> > So I wondered if such a clone configuration would work with my wti_nps stonith devices. I think it cannot work because the wti's allow only one simultaneously telnet connection. If a second connection is established, it returns immediately with an error. So running more than one instances of the stonith resources may not work because if the nodes try to perform a operation a the same time it fails on one node.
> i cant really comment on this - i dont know how the plugins work
> > After a while thinking about it I had the idea to weak the location constrains by giving them a score of less than -INFINITY
> Any node with a score less than 0 wont be able to run the resource.
> We use -INFINITY so that it is impossible for the node to end up with
> a positive score.
> So I dont think it will have any effect here.
> > and set the start_prereq to fencing.
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here... for which resources
> are you doing this?
I wanted to set start_prereq to fencing on the fencing resources themselfe, to make sure that only one host can run the resource at one time. But in some cases this is a hen - egg problem.
Many thanks in advance
> > I don't know why but this sounds ridiculous dangerous ;)
> > I would appreciate if someone has a better idea.
> > Many thanks in advance.
> > Stefan Peinkofer
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-HA mailing list
> > Linux-HA at lists.linux-ha.org
> > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
> Linux-HA mailing list
> Linux-HA at lists.linux-ha.org
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
More information about the Linux-HA