[Engine-devel] SSH Soft Fencing

[Eli Mesika]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
> To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Martin Perina" <mperina at redhat.com>, engine-devel at ovirt.org, "Barak Azulay" <bazulay at redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:43:17 PM
> Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika at redhat.com>
> > To: "Martin Perina" <mperina at redhat.com>
> > Cc: engine-devel at ovirt.org, "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, "Barak
> > Azulay" <bazulay at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:48:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Martin Perina" <mperina at redhat.com>
> > > To: engine-devel at ovirt.org
> > > Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, "Barak Azulay"
> > > <bazulay at redhat.com>, "Eli Mesika" <emesika at 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 

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 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
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Martin Perina
> > > 
> > 
>