On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Robert Gil wrote: > What version of cluster are you running? [jmmpelto@pcn3 ~]$ sudo rpm -qa 'lvm*cluster|cman|rgmanager' cman-2.0.60-1.el5 lvm2-cluster-2.02.16-3.el5 rgmanager-2.0.23-1.el5.centos I'm not running rgmanager-2.0.24 because it didn't seem to run the script status checks (!). --Janne > -----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 -- Janne Peltonen <janne.peltonen@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
