Thanks Jiri, I've added this to our queue.

I've added the fencing config in https://github.com/SUSE/doc-sleha/pull/397
Descriptions are copied from the NFS/DRBD guide. Let me know if you're happy with this :)

Yan, could you please also take a look? Is there anything else missing from this DRBD config file?

(In reply to Tahlia Richardson from comment #2)
> I've added the fencing config in https://github.com/SUSE/doc-sleha/pull/397
> Descriptions are copied from the NFS/DRBD guide. Let me know if you're happy
> with this :)

seems ok; thank you.

Thanks, Tahlia!

Roger for sure has a better idea about this :-)

(In reply to Tahlia Richardson from comment #2)
> I've added the fencing config in https://github.com/SUSE/doc-sleha/pull/397
> Descriptions are copied from the NFS/DRBD guide. Let me know if you're happy
> with this :)
> 
> Yan, could you please also take a look? Is there anything else missing from
> this DRBD config file?

From the document structure wise, this bug report tends to move the current section

"23.5 Using resource-level fencing with STONITH"

under 

"23.3 Setting up DRBD service"

And, probably after 

"23.3.1 Configuring DRBD manually"

as 

"23.3.2 Configuring DRBD using resource-level fencing with STONITH"


Since I see Jiri's justification to group together those similar operations for DRBD configuration files. Or, maybe consider merge 23.3.1 and 23.3.2, well, I'm not 100% sure the reader experience.


Accordingly, I suggest to rename the section name as

"23.3 Setting up DRBD service and DRBD configuration files"

Hence, again, delete the section 23.5. Otherwise, sounds like I see it as the unnecessary duplication.

(In reply to Roger Zhou from comment #5)
> (In reply to Tahlia Richardson from comment #2)
> > I've added the fencing config in https://github.com/SUSE/doc-sleha/pull/397
> > Descriptions are copied from the NFS/DRBD guide. Let me know if you're happy
> > with this :)
> > 
> > Yan, could you please also take a look? Is there anything else missing from
> > this DRBD config file?
> 
> From the document structure wise, this bug report tends to move the current
> section
> 
> "23.5 Using resource-level fencing with STONITH"
> 
> under 
> 
> "23.3 Setting up DRBD service"
> 
> And, probably after 
> 
> "23.3.1 Configuring DRBD manually"
> 
> as 
> 
> "23.3.2 Configuring DRBD using resource-level fencing with STONITH"
> 
> 
> Since I see Jiri's justification to group together those similar operations
> for DRBD configuration files. Or, maybe consider merge 23.3.1 and 23.3.2,
> well, I'm not 100% sure the reader experience.
> 
> 
> Accordingly, I suggest to rename the section name as
> 
> "23.3 Setting up DRBD service and DRBD configuration files"
> 
> Hence, again, delete the section 23.5. Otherwise, sounds like I see it as
> the unnecessary duplication.

Oh, that's a very good point, thanks! All HA clusters should be using STONITH so it doesn't really make sense to have that config hidden in a different section. I'll merge all the info from 23.5 into the DRBD config section.

I also agree that the chapter's structure needs some reworking overall. I won't do that as part of this bug, so as not to push out the scope too much, but I do have a jira ticket already open for it, which I hope to get to in the near future now that all my SP6 tasks are done.

I've now updated the PR to get rid of "23.5 Using resource-level fencing with STONITH", and condensed the relevant info into "23.3.1 Configuring DRBD manually". Are the descriptions still correct, or do they need a little tweaking?

Thanks Tahlia! I prefer to stay with two sections

"23.3.1 Configuring DRBD manually"

and 

"23.3.2 Configuring DRBD using resource-level fencing with STONITH"


The later "23.3.2" focus on the resource-level fencing, which is the further advanced fencing as the addition to the cluster level fencing. Still, some DRBD clusters may not need this.

(In reply to Roger Zhou from comment #8)
> Thanks Tahlia! I prefer to stay with two sections
> 
> "23.3.1 Configuring DRBD manually"
> 
> and 
> 
> "23.3.2 Configuring DRBD using resource-level fencing with STONITH"
> 
> 
> The later "23.3.2" focus on the resource-level fencing, which is the further
> advanced fencing as the addition to the cluster level fencing. Still, some
> DRBD clusters may not need this.

Oh, I think I'm confused now. So the 'net' and 'handlers' sections don't need to be in "23.3.1 Configuring DRBD manually", they're just optional? 

In that case I could probably just add a step in 23.3.1, linking to "23.5 Using resource-level fencing with STONITH" instead of moving it?

I was told by Rolf that we do not support running DRBD outside the cluster.

(In reply to Jiri Belka from comment #10)
> I was told by Rolf that we do not support running DRBD outside the cluster.

Fair argument. Yes, that's the majority. I'm fine if you prefer just one section.


(In reply to Tahlia Richardson from comment #9)
> (In reply to Roger Zhou from comment #8)
> > Thanks Tahlia! I prefer to stay with two sections
> > 
> > "23.3.1 Configuring DRBD manually"
> > 
> > and 
> > 
> > "23.3.2 Configuring DRBD using resource-level fencing with STONITH"
> > 
> > 
> > The later "23.3.2" focus on the resource-level fencing, which is the further
> > advanced fencing as the addition to the cluster level fencing. Still, some
> > DRBD clusters may not need this.
> 
> Oh, I think I'm confused now. So the 'net' and 'handlers' sections don't

@Tahlia,

We can delete the line for "protocol  C" if you'd like, since it is the default value.


> need to be in "23.3.1 Configuring DRBD manually", they're just optional? 
> 
> In that case I could probably just add a step in 23.3.1, linking to "23.5
> Using resource-level fencing with STONITH" instead of moving it?

Thanks Jiri and Roger, this is now complete and backported. It will be published with the next weekly docs update.