Bowie Bailey wrote: > Patrick Caulfield <mailto:pcaulfie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>No, because fencing has to be done by one of the cluster nodes. And >>the cluster must be quorate to fence another node - otherwise it >>could be an isolated node fencing the valid part. > > > Ok, that makes sense. How does this work with a two-node cluster? > It's a race to see who gets fenced first. The winner lives :) >>>What I will have is three nodes. Two that actively use the data in >>>the shared storage and one node that handles backups. >>> >>>The backup node is not critical and could be down at any time for a >>>number of reasons. I want to make sure that if the backup node is >>>down and one of the other nodes crashes, that the one remaining >>>node will continue to be able to access the data in the GFS. > > Not really. What you seem to want is a two-node cluster with a zero-vote "hanger-on" node. cman is either a two-node cluster or not, there's no way to tell it that the backup node isn't important. I think the think to do it is not to have the backup node in the cluster at all and think of sme other way of doing the backups - NFS say. -- patrick -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
