Description of problem: New fenced config option <fence_daemon skip_undefined="1"/> would cause fenced to not attempt any fencing on nodes with undefined fence/method/device. Currently, fenced tries, fails, and retries (repeatedly) to fence a node with undefined fence/method/device, which requires an override. The primary use for this option would be asymmetric cluster configs (http://sources.redhat.com/cluster/wiki/asymmetric_cluster_config) where client/small/spectator nodes do not join the fence domain and have no fencing configured. The problem we have is that even with no fencing configured, and not joining the fence domain, other nodes may attempt (and fail) to fence these client nodes during startup fencing. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
Created attachment 314331 [details] proposed patch very simple patch (untested)
patch in comment 2 left out a couple of key bits, ignore it
I think I'd like to limit the scope of skip_undefined to skip just startup fencing of nodes with no defined methods (as shown in the initial patch in comment 2). The original description of skip_undefined was more general and also applied to domain members that failed, which is something we don't have need for.
Created attachment 314338 [details] proposed patch Adds a couple missing bits from previous patch. Nodes with no methods are skipped in startup fencing only.
pushed to RHEL5 and STABLE2
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-2009-0189.html