On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 17:46 +0100, gordan@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Andrew Lacey wrote: > > >> but you could also just tune deadnode_timeout to be different on both > >> nodes: this results the behaviour Gordan told - the node that has smaller > >> deadnode_timeout would fence first. > > > > Would this work in a situation where the switch was down for a few > > minutes? Suppose the deadnode_timeout is 30 seconds on one node and 60 > > seconds on the other. So, after 60 seconds of switch downtime, both nodes > > would be trying to fence. If the switch comes up after being down for 5 > > minutes, they would still immediately fence each other. Or am I not > > thinking about this correctly? > > There's an argument that if your switch is down for 30 minutes, you > have bigger problems. If you have a 30 minute switch outage, the chances > are that you can live with the node power-up time on top of that. ... or an argument that maybe the 'sleep' delay in a fencing agent on a given node isn't necessarily a bad thing after all :D -- Lon -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
