Re: [Engine-devel] SSH Soft Fencing

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 12:57:34 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SSH Soft Fencing > > On 07/01/2013 11:27 AM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 11:23:12 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SSH Soft Fencing >>> >>> So let me summarize it: >>> >>> We have come to agreement in those questions: >>> >>> 1) SSH Soft Fencing logic should be extracted from >>> VdsNotRespondingTreatment >>> command to its own SshSoftFencingCommand >>> >>> 2) VdsNotRespondingCommand should be refactored so it's not inherited from >>> VdsRestartCommand, but it should run SshSoftFencingCommand >>> or VdsRestartCommand based on defined fencing flow >>> >>> >>> These questions has not been resolved yet: >>> >>> 3) Should SSH Soft Fencing be executed also for hosts without PM >>> configured? >>> >>> 4) Should SSH Soft Fencing execution for hosts without PM configured be >>> enabled >>> by default and admin can turn off these feature using configuration >>> options >>> SshSoftFencingWithoutPmEnabled (or something like that)? >>> >>> 5) Should SshSoftFencingWithoutPmEnabled be a global option or a cluster >>> wide >>> option (can be turned off for specific cluster version) or a VDS option >>> (it can be turned off for each host)? >>> >>> >>> Personally I would suggest: >>> >>> ad 3) Yes, SSH Soft Fencing should be executed also for hosts without PM >>> configured >>> > > > +1 > >>> ad 4) Yes, SSH Soft Fencing for hosts without PM configured should be >>> enabled by default >>> > > +1 > >>> ad 5) I don't see any significant reason why someone would like to turn >>> off >>> SSH Soft Fencing >>> for hosts without PM configured. But if someone would like to do >>> that, >>> I think >>> he would like to turn it off only for specific hosts, so VDS level >>> option makes sense >>> for me >> >> After re-thinking 5 - I agree. >> +1 on the other suggestions, but of course we need to get more consensus >> here. >> > > I think it does not need to be configurable.

+1 on all above as well > >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Engine-devel mailing list >>> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Engine-devel mailing list >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel