From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabio M. Di Nitto Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:32:11 +0200 Subject: [Cluster-devel] checkquorum script for self fencing In-Reply-To: <24E144B8C0207547AD09C467A8259F7557686829@lisa.maurer-it.com> References: <24E144B8C0207547AD09C467A8259F753ED3D85B@lisa.maurer-it.com> <4EF2C69D.50303@redhat.com> <24E144B8C0207547AD09C467A8259F7557686829@lisa.maurer-it.com> Message-ID: <506B332B.8000100@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 10/02/2012 08:07 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote: > Hi Fabio, > > was there any progress on that topic? As a matter of fact, yes, we are completing the first implementation and writing down the docs and howto's. I think the first cut will be available for testing within a week, maybe two. Fabio > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cluster-devel-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:cluster-devel- >> bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Fabio M. Di Nitto >> Sent: Donnerstag, 22. Dezember 2011 06:57 >> To: cluster-devel at redhat.com >> Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] checkquorum script for self fencing >> >> On 12/21/2011 08:28 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote: >>> I recently detected that checkquorum script for self fencing. >>> >>> That seems to work reliable, but the remaining nodes (with quorum) >>> does not get any fence acknowledge. >>> >>> I wonder if it would be possible to extend the checkquorum script so >>> that it runs fence_ack_manual on the fence master after some safety >> timeout? >>> >>> Or do you think that is a bad idea? >> >> We are already working on a similar feature based on checkquorum, but I got >> injured on my hand and I had to delay a bit the write up for the feature (I am >> incredibly slow writing with one hand, never mind the typos ;)). >> >> The way you suggest is dangerous, so no, don't take that route. >> >> The full feature proposal will come soon after this December holiday/xmas >> break. >> >> Fabio >> > >