Patrick Caulfield <mailto:pcaulfie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bowie Bailey wrote: > > > > 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 thing to do it is not to have the backup node in the > cluster at all and think of some other way of doing the backups - NFS > say. I was trying to avoid the extra network traffic of doing backups over the network. Since I've got sharable storage, it's more efficient to have the backup device connect directly. I think I'll leave things the way they are and just keep in mind that the cluster is vulnerable when the backup system is shut down (which shouldn't really be that often anyway). Thanks for the explanations! -- Bowie -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
