Re: Why Redhat replace quorum partition/lock lun with
new fencing mechanisms?
Kevin Anderson wrote:
If you have access to shared storage, then a two node cluster with
quorum disk/fencing would be a better configuration and could be the
recommended configuration. However, there are still cases where you
could have a two node cluster with no shared storage. Depends on how
the application is sharing state or accessing data. But for an
active/passive two node failover cluster, I can see where the quorum
disk will be very popular.
Kevin
When configuring the cluquorumd for a two node cluster (active-active
nfs server), the GUI recommends using a network tiebreaker ip address.
Why is that?
Under heavier network load, we occasionally see one of the members
(usually the highest priority member) reporting that the connection to
the tiebreaker is offline. It subsequently gets fenced by the other
node, and simply reboots.
(FWIIW, we checked the network cards, cables, and switch and
swithc-ports between the two nodes. The system that holds the TB
address is currently waiting to be re-installed, so it's pretty much idle.)
I thought the network tiebreaker was meant to avoid a split-brain
cluster, but if it isn't, needless to say, we'd be happy to get rid of it.
Kind regards,
Herta
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
