I do not have cluster storage, e.g. SAN, GFS, NFS. Using 2 DRBD
patitions for postgres so I will evaluate this option carefully. If it
can take care of its own split brain recovery and avoid FS corruption, I
may chance the lack of fencing as a nonfunctional cluster is pretty bad.
Lon Hohberger wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 01:57:57PM -0500, Chris Harms wrote:
What are the implications of this? i.e. , if there is node failure and
fenced is not running, does the cluster skip fencing and assume services?
That's what's supposed to happen.
Obviously if you have shared storage, you can expect data corruption too
^^;;
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
