Bug 1114253
| Summary: | PRD35 - [RFE] Allow to perform fence operations from a host in another DC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager | Reporter: | Oved Ourfali <oourfali> |
| Component: | ovirt-engine | Assignee: | Eli Mesika <emesika> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | sefi litmanovich <slitmano> |
| Severity: | urgent | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 3.4.0 | CC: | ecohen, emesika, gklein, iheim, lbopf, lpeer, mgoldboi, oourfali, pstehlik, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, sherold, s.kieske, yeylon |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
| Target Release: | 3.5.0 | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | infra | ||
| Fixed In Version: | vt1.3 | Doc Type: | Enhancement |
| Doc Text: |
Previously, a host performing a fencing operation had to be in the same data center as the host being fenced. Now, a host can be fenced by a host from a different data center.
|
Story Points: | --- |
| Clone Of: | 1054778 | Environment: | |
| Last Closed: | 2015-02-11 18:05:02 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | Infra | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 1054778, 1090803, 1131411 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 1142923, 1156165 | ||
|
Description
Oved Ourfali
2014-06-29 09:00:08 UTC
This doc text does not make any sense and is confusing imho: "We currently limit the host that does the fencing operation to be on the same Dc as the fenced host, although a host in another DC can also do that." The sentence contradicts itself. (In reply to Sven Kieske from comment #1) > This doc text does not make any sense and is confusing imho: > > "We currently limit the host that does the fencing operation to be on the > same Dc as the fenced host, although a host in another DC can also do that." > > The sentence contradicts itself. Where is the contradiction? I wrote that the "reason" for the feature is that we limit the host to be in the same DC, while other DC hosts can do that. And the result is that we now allow to use hosts from another DC as well. (In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #2) > (In reply to Sven Kieske from comment #1) > > This doc text does not make any sense and is confusing imho: > > > > "We currently limit the host that does the fencing operation to be on the > > same Dc as the fenced host, although a host in another DC can also do that." > > > > The sentence contradicts itself. > > Where is the contradiction? > I wrote that the "reason" for the feature is that we limit the host to be in > the same DC, while other DC hosts can do that. > And the result is that we now allow to use hosts from another DC as well. Your spelling is misleading imho, you do not limit this anymore so imho the wording should be: "we limitED the host[..]" but this are just my 2 cents, feel free to keep your wording. I'm also no native english speaker, so I might be wrong. (In reply to Sven Kieske from comment #3) > (In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #2) > > (In reply to Sven Kieske from comment #1) > > > This doc text does not make any sense and is confusing imho: > > > > > > "We currently limit the host that does the fencing operation to be on the > > > same Dc as the fenced host, although a host in another DC can also do that." > > > > > > The sentence contradicts itself. > > > > Where is the contradiction? > > I wrote that the "reason" for the feature is that we limit the host to be in > > the same DC, while other DC hosts can do that. > > And the result is that we now allow to use hosts from another DC as well. > > Your spelling is misleading imho, you do not limit this anymore so imho the > wording should be: > "we limitED the host[..]" > > but this are just my 2 cents, feel free to keep your wording. > I'm also no native english speaker, so I might be wrong. I see. Fixed. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0158.html |