----- Original Message -----
From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer@redhat.com> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 8:06:28 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SSH Soft Fencing
On 06/30/2013 05:46 AM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay@redhat.com> To: "Martin Perina" <mperina@redhat.com> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:31:35 PM Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> Cc: "Martin Perina" <mperina@redhat.com>, engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Barak Azulay" <bazulay@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:55:29 PM Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> Cc: "Martin Perina" <mperina@redhat.com>, engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Barak Azulay" <bazulay@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:43:17 PM Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> To: "Martin Perina" <mperina@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Barak Azulay" <bazulay@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:48:39 PM Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Perina" <mperina@redhat.com> > To: engine-devel@ovirt.org > Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Barak Azulay" > <bazulay@redhat.com>, "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:51:06 PM > Subject: SSH Soft Fencing > > Hi, > > SSH Soft Fencing is a new feature for 3.3 and it tries to restart > VDSM > using SSH connection on non responsive hosts prior to real fencing. > More info can be found at > > http://www.ovirt.org/Automatic_Fencing#Automatic_Fencing_in_oVirt_3.3 > > In current SSH Soft Fencing implementation the restart VDSM using SSH > command is part of standard fencing implementation in > VdsNotRespondingTreatmentCommand. But this command is executed only > if a host has a valid PM configuration. If host doesn't have a valid > PM configuration, the execution of the command is disabled and host > state is change to Non Responsive. > > So my question are: > > 1) Should SSH Soft Fencing be executed on hosts without valid PM > configuration?
I think that the answer should be yes. The vdsm restart will solve most of problems , so why not using it whether a PM agent is defined or not. I agree. I would like to say that I also don't like the fact that VdsNotRespondingTreatment extends RestartVdsCommand. One should ask if "non responding treatment is a restart vds operation" or maybe RestartVdsCommand is just a step in the non responding treatment (inheritance vs containment/delegation). I think that VdsNotRespodingTreatment should delegate the call to RestartVdsCommand as the 2nd step after issuing the Soft Fencing command. Thoughts anyone?
That would be a nice and needed re-factoring
I would say yes - but would add it only with appropriate configuration (enableAutoSoftVdsmRestartWhenNoPMAvailable .... I hate the name)
+1 on configuration. Configuration must reside at host-related entities (i.e - VdsStatic).
Yair
Why would a user like to avoid fencing VDSM when host becomes non-responsive?
I think that adding another configuration option is cumbersome with no real value.
I totally agree with Livnat here , restarting vdsm may resolve problems and is much less brutal that host restart, should be implemented without any configuration IMHO
Livnat
> > 2) Should VDSM restart using SSH command be reimplemented > as standalone command to be usable also in other parts of engine? > If 1) is true, I think it will have to be done anyway.
I agree here.
+1
On one hand it makes sense, but I have several questions on the above: - Who do we think may want to use such a command ? - Should (or even can) we limit the use of such command to noneResponsiveTreatment ?
Having general commands available to all code when there is only one specific case we are using it might be a bit riskey, Especially when we talk about restarting something.
Thoughts ?
> > > Martin Perina >
_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel