+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #444210 +++ Description of problem: When adding fencing to a node, if I select "add a fence device to this level" under either "Main" or "Backup" fencing methods more than once at a time, when saving it with "update fence properties", the entries are duplicated in both "Main" and "Backup". If I add one device, save it, then add another, it works as expected. I also tried this using 5.2 beta, and it still occurs (it seems to duplicate it twice in each section as well). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): luci-0.10.0-6.el5.x86_64 luci-0.12.0-5.el5.x86_64 How reproducible: Everytime Steps to Reproduce: 1. Setup a new cluster 2. Select any node to configure fencing 3. Add more than one fencing device at the same time to the same Fencing Method and save it with the "update fence properties" button. Actual results: The fencing devices are duplicated in both main and backup. The cluster.conf also lists the duplicate entries. However, if I add only one fencing device and save it, I can add another one at the same level with out issue. Expected results: The entries should only appear in the section that the fencing devices were added to. Additional info: I also had issues when trying to remove previous duplicates. I have to remove and save individual fencing devices. If I remove all of them and save, it does not remove them properly. It appears to be the same type of behavior as adding them. -- Additional comment from vvaldez on 2008-04-25 15:48 EST -- I meant to add that the scenario that requires this type of configuration is when the nodes are connected to two network power switches, and require both devices as their main fencing method. In my lab I have one apc and one wti that each node is connected to. However, I can reproduce this by adding any fence devices to the same method at once.
fix verified in luci-0.11.2-2.el4 entries for one fencing method are not automagically copied to the other fencing method
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-1063.html