From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan O'Hara Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:22:26 -0600 Subject: [Cluster-devel] unfencing In-Reply-To: <20090223190958.GD12791@redhat.com> References: <20090220214431.GC23911@redhat.com> <1235370440.7816.209.camel@cerberus.int.fabbione.net> <20090223181530.GB12791@redhat.com> <1235413889.7816.256.camel@cerberus.int.fabbione.net> <20090223184030.GC12791@redhat.com> <1235415175.7816.261.camel@cerberus.int.fabbione.net> <20090223190958.GD12791@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090223192226.GA14849@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:09:58PM -0600, David Teigland wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:52:55PM +0100, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: > > > 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? > > It would work. Users can do anything they like, that's beside the point. > > The point is to make storage fencing more practical by automating storage > unfencing. Otherwise, users have to invent ad hoc methods of doing it > themselves, often manually. And, we end up solving the problem in painful, > one-off cases like scsi_reserve/fence_scsi, which cry out for a better > approach. I was going to ask about this. From the sounds of it, we could elimiate the need for scsi_reserve completly. At least I can't think of any reason that it could not me eliminated at this point.