I don't have a favorite node, I just want to have failover protection
when it's running on two nodes because I've removed the third for
updates and fs checks.
I need the group's wisdom to make sure that's it's likely that the
cluster will continue to operate down to one functioning node without
the two_node="1" switch.
If the IP tie-breaker counts for one vote, will the good node maintain
quorum? Will luci adjust the votes needed properly for this when I make
the third node leave? If one node fails and a second node fails before I
fix the first, will quorum be maintained in the last node standing
(without two_node="1")? I'm not sure what all two_node changes about voting.
thanks
scottb
Josh Gray wrote:
From what i've found, the safest to do would be modify the number of
votes for the node you want to stay up to be a really high number. I
thought about making that my "maintenance mode" situation.
Josh
On Oct 29, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Scott Becker wrote:
I'm building a 3-node cluster.
One public subnet.
No shared filesystem
Starting with just one service (www) on one movable IP address.
I will be routinely bring down one node at a time for maintenance so
I must configure the cluster for one node operation. I can't use the
two_node="1" setting because I would have to bring the cluster down
to set and unset it.
I want to use an IP tie-breaker to verify that the node can reach the
main router. Is this, along with a self test of the web service, fs
writable, etc. adequate for one, two and three node operation? Or
would I also need a Qdisk?
thanks
scottb
--
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
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
