Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: SBD 1.2.0 / corosync 2.3

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Philipp,

philipp.achmueller@xxxxxx napsal(a):
hi,

thank you for clarification.

i just wanted to test storage based fencing.
May i have to reconsider about using storage based fencing, but since my
actual fencing method(fence_cisco_ucs) use ip, i'm not 100% sure if this
is enough to keep my VMs safe.

So you are running multiple VMs (and on them cluster) or cluster of bare metal machines with VMs (and they are not part of cluster)?

Because for first case, it's best to use VMs fencing. For second case, fence_cisco_ucs is probably best method, because it will simply prohibit evinced node to access shared storage with VMs, so VMs are safe.

Regards,
  Honza


i will file a bug for sbd

regards



_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Clusters]     [Corosync Project]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [X.Org]

  Powered by Linux