before I tried with manual fencing I tried this with automatic fencing (fence_rib). And always mitte was faster and fenced oben and unten. This means, one faulty node can reboot all other nodes. I think this is not ok. And even after reboot the problem is not solved, because the faulty node is still faulty. A node should only be allowed to fence if it is Master and if it has the qourum. And never if it is in arbitrating mode. > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Landherr > Sent: Dienstag, 3. August 2004 18:23 > To: Discussion of clustering software components including GFS > Subject: RE: [Linux-cluster] GFS 6.0 node without quorum > tries to fence > > > In a netsplit, what does fencing achieve when done by a node > that doesn't have quorum? It still won't have quorum. It > should probably just clean up as best it can and leave the > rest of the cluster alone. > > -steve > -- > Steve Landherr -- landherr@xxxxxxxxxx > Kazeon Systems, Inc. > Mountain View, California > > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of > Michael Conrad Tadpol Tilstra > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 9:13 AM > To: Discussion of clustering software components including GFS > Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] GFS 6.0 node without quorum > tries to fence > > So looking at what you gave below, mitte was master. (making > this guess from the "Core lost slave quorum" part of the > message below.) It knows that it doesn't have quorum, it > still is going to try to be the Master. It does not know > "that it can not build a cluster." The only thing it knows > right now about the other nodes is that they failed to send > heartbeats. Therefor they must have left the cluter > abnormally. Therefor it must fence them. > > The other two nodes see that mitte have failed to reply to > heartbeats. Therefor it must have left the cluster > abnormally. Therefor it must be fenced. > > Both sides of the netsplit are trying to resolve things to > regain the cluster. From an outsiders view point (which you > and I have, the nodes do not.) We can see that mitte's > attempts are futile, oben and unten will get control of the > cluter. But the node cannot see this. > > This is what makes netsplits kind of ugly. > > (using ifdown to test cluster stuff causes extra confusion in > my opinion. because you actually are creating a netsplit > case. Not a simpler node down case. The power switch is > nice for this.) > > > I hope that made some sence. > > -- > Michael Conrad Tadpol Tilstra > Blood is thicker than water, and much tastier. > > > > -- > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-> cluster >
