Oops! Looks like I sent this 1 second too soon. 8) > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > JACOB_LIBERMAN@xxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:42 PM > To: linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Fencing agents > > Hi Adam, > > I noticed that you updated this script quite a bit from > previous versions. If I'm not mistaken, the previous version > actually used the "racadm serveraction > powercycle/shutdown/etc" commands. This version uses telnet > exclusively. How about adding some logic that checks whether > racadm is installed locally and uses that if it is, and then > uses telnet if it is not? > > I think that adding the racadm commands to enable telnet on > the rac is a good idea, but if they can use racadm to > configure telnet access, they should also be able to use > racadm to fence the node. > > Just my 2 cents. I think its great that you wrote an agent > for the drac. > > Thanks, jacob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Manthei > > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:30 PM > > To: linux clustering > > Subject: Re: Fencing agents > > > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 11:58:47AM +0000, "Sævaldur Arnar > Gunnarsson > > [Hugsmiðjan]" wrote: > > > I'm implementing a shared storage between multiple (2 at > > the moment) > > > Blade machines (Dell PowerEdge 1855) running RHEL4 ES > > connected to a > > > EMC AX100 through FC. > > > > > > The SAN has two FC ports so the need for a FC Switch has > > not yet come > > > however we will add other Blades in the coming months. > > > The one thing I haven't got figured out with GFS and the > > Cluster-Suite > > > is the whole idea about fencing. > > > > Funny timing :) I just checked in the fencing agent for > the PowerEdge > > 1855's a couple days ago! > > > > (http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/cluster/fence/ag > > ents/drac/fence_drac.pl?rev=1.3.4.2&content-type=text/x-cvsweb > > -markup&cvsroot=cluster) > > > > > The fencing agents in that setup is manual fencing. > > > > I would strongly discourage this. > > > > > What does "automatic" fencing have to offer that the manual > > fencing lacks. > > > If we decide to buy the FC switch right away is it > > recomended that we > > > buy one of the ones that have fencing agent available for the > > > Cluster-Suite ? > > > > In this case, you already have a fencing agent (fence_drac) > that works > > with the PE 1855 blades so there is no need for further fencing > > hardware (unless you are going to be connecting other > machines to the > > cluster that aren't going to have any other form of fencing) > > > > The main advantage that "automatic" fencing gives you over manual > > fencing is that in the event that a fencing operation is required, > > your cluster can automatically recover (on the order of seconds to > > minutes) instead of waiting for user intervention (which can take > > minutes to hours to days depending on > > how attentive the admins are :). > > > > -- > > Adam Manthei <amanthei@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > -- > > > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > > > > -- > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
