<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>30 jul 2012 kl. 11.01 skrev Itamar Heim:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 07/30/2012 08:56 AM, Karli Sjöberg wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">28 jul 2012 kl. 14.11 skrev Moti Asayag:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On 07/26/2012 02:53 PM, Karli Sjöberg wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In my DC, I have three hosts added:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">hostA<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">hostB<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">hostC<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I want a way to force only to use hostA as a proxy for power commands.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The algorithm of selection a host to act as a proxy for PM commands is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">quite naive: any host from the system with status UP.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">You can see how it is being selected in FencingExecutor.FindVdsToFence()<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">from<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ovirt-engine/backend/manager/modules/bll/src/main/java/org/ovirt/engine/core/bll/FencingExecutor.java<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">There is no other algorithm for the selection at the moment.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">How would you handle a case in which hostA isn't responsive ? Wouldn't<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">you prefer trying to perform the fencing using other available host ?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Let me explain a little to make you better understand my reasoning<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">behind this configuration.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">We work with segmented, separated networks. One network for public<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">access, one for storage traffic, one for management and so on. That<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">means that if the nodes themselves have to do their own<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">power-management, the nodes would require three interfaces each, and the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">metal we are using for hosts just don´t have that. But if we can use the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">engine to do that, the hosts would only require two interfaces, which<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">most 1U servers are equipped with as standard (plus one<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">iLO/IPMI/whatev), so we can use them as hosts without issue. Then the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">backend has one extra interface that it can use to communicate over the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">power management network to the respective service processor with.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Is there a "better" way to achieve what we are aiming for? Ideally, I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">would like to set up the two NICs in a bond and create VLAN-interfaces<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">on top of that bond. That way, I can have as many virtual interfaces as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I want without having more than two physical NICs, but I haven´t been<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">able to find a good HOWTO explaining the process.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>I think there is a difference between:<br>1. allowing engine to fence<br>2. allowing to choose fencing host per cluster (or per host)<br><br>it sounds like you actually want #1, but can live with #2, by installing <br>the engine as a host as well.<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div>Exactly, I can live with #2, as I have the engine added as hostA in my DC<br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br></div><div>Med Vänliga Hälsningar<br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Karli Sjöberg<br>Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences<br>Box 7079 (Visiting Address Kronåsvägen 8)<br>S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden<br>Phone: +46-(0)18-67 15 66</div><div><a href="mailto:karli.sjoberg@adm.slu.se">karli.sjoberg@slu.se</a></div></span>
</div>
<br></body></html>