What version of cluster are you running? Robert Gil Linux Systems Administrator American Home Mortgage -----Original Message----- From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Janne Peltonen Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:46 AM To: linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Cluster node without access to all resources -trouble Hi. I'm running a five node cluster. Four of the nodes run services that need access to a SAN, but the fifth doesn't. (The fifth node belongs to the cluster to avoid a cluster with an even number of nodes. Additionally, the fifth node is a stand-alone rack server, while the four other nodes are blade server, two of the in two different blade racks - this way, even if either of the blade racks goes down, I won't lose the cluster.) This seems to create all sorts of trouble. For example, if I try to manipulate clvm'd filesystems on the other four nodes, they refuse to commit changes if the fifth node is up. And even if I've restricted the SAN-access-needing services to run only on the four nodes that have the access, the cluster system tries to shut the services down in the fifth node also (when quorum is lost, for example) - and complains about being unable to stop them and, on the nodes that should run the services, refuses to restart them until I've removed the fifth node from the cluster and fenced it. (Or, rather, I've removed the fifth node from the cluster and one of the other nodes has successfully fenced it.) So. Is it really necessary that all the members in a cluster have access to all the resources that any of the members have, even if the services in the cluster are partitioned to run in only a part of the cluster? Or is there a way to tell the cluster that it shouldn't care about the fifth members opinion about certain services; that is, it doesn't need to check if the services are running on it, because they never do. Or should I just make sure that the fifth member always comes up last (that is, won't be running while the others are coming up)? Or should I aceept that I'm going to create more harm than avoiding by letting the fifth node belong to the cluster, and just run it outside the cluster? Sorry if this was incoherent. I'm a bit tired; this system should be in production in two weeks, and unexpected problems (that didn't come up during testing) keep coming up... Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. --Janne -- Janne Peltonen <janne.peltonen@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
