On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 17:04 +0100, Matteo Catanese wrote:
>Fencing never completes because iLO does not have power. This an
>architectural limitation to using iLO (or IPMI, actually) in a cluster
>environment as the sole fencing method. Compare to RSA - which can
have
>its own external power supply - even though it is an integrated
solution
>like iLO.
To me this is a fence_ilo limitation
>With redundant power supplies, the expectation is that different
>circuits (or preferably - different power sources entirely) are used,
>which should make the tested case significantly less likely to occur.
Yes but i want a NSPOF cluster, not a less_likely_SPOF one
>iLO being unreachable means iLO is unreachable, and assumptions as to
>why should probably not be limited to lack of power. Routing
problems,
>bad network cable, disconnected cable, and the occasional infinite
>iLO-DHCP loop will all make iLO unreachable, but in no way confirm
that
>the node is dead.
We are always talking about avoiding _single point of failure_, not
multiple ones.
My ILO_IP_ADDRESSES are static so no infinite dhcp loop
I have bonded (mode 1) heartbeat channel on 2 separate bridged
switches (powered by 2 different powersupply) so if one node does
not reach the other one _AND_ fence_ilo fails, this means (by a SPOF
point of view) that the other node had power failure.
So please at least for fence_ilo allow some parameter to let fence
spit out a warning and unlock the cluster service
Matteo
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
