actually, it doesn't even work with what I thought I could do, which is to have each node have a vote count equal to the quorum, since the vote count is summed and halved. ...you guys are tricky ;) so help is needed, or maybe a pointer to a thread on where this has been discussed previously. thanks, dan On 5, May, 2005, Dan B. Phung declared: > Hello, I was wondering if a quorum makes sense when I have one underlying > shared device. My setup is this: > > > blade1 b2 b3 b4 b5 ..... > \ | | | | | | / > [ fiber switch module ] > | | > [FastT500/EXP500] > > and I want any blade to be able to access the storage at anytime. right > now I have my configuration such that each node has the number of votes > equivalent to the quorum. Does this make sense? From my understanding, > the quorum/voting procedure is to prevent split-brain scenarios where two > nodes coming up for the first time might try to form two separate clusters > of the same name, which will cause data corruption. How would I prevent > that, while still allowing any one node, even by itself, to access the > storage media. > > Another use of the quorum is for distributed disks in the case of a node > failure the I/O to that disk is fenced. Is that correct? > > regards, > Dan > > -- -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
