On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 09:37 -0600, David Teigland wrote: > > <clusternode name="node1" votes="1"> > > <fence> > > <method name="1"> > > <device name="HPiLO_node2"/> > > </method> > > </fence> > > </clusternode> > > > <clusternode name="node2" votes="1"> > > <fence> > > <method name="1"> > > <device name="HPiLO_node1"/> > > </method> > > </fence> > > </clusternode> > > > <fencedevices> > > <fencedevice agent="fence_ilo" hostname="10.10.10.1" > > login="Administrator" name="HPiLO_node1" passwd="RWE232WE"/> > > <fencedevice agent="fence_ilo" hostname="10.10.10.2" > > login="Administrator" name="HPiLO_node2" passwd="QWD31D4D"/> > > </fencedevices> > > I've never configured fence_ilo before, but you may want to check this. > You specify in node A's <fence> section how others will fence node A > (not how node A will fence another node). So, shouldn't node1 list > HPiLO_node1 as its fence device and node2 list HPiLO_node2? Yes, this is correct - the configuration looks backwards. -- Lon -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
