On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:48:31PM -0600, David Teigland wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:27:14PM -0800, Scott Becker wrote: > > I have three nodes. If one fails the other two are expected to maintain > > quorum and continue. I would really like a second failure to keep going > > on it's own (last man standing). For this to work I would need to set > > expected votes to 1 and make sure the correct node wins the ensuing > > fencing race. > > > > Case two. I remove one node from the cluster to maintain it. Now I have > > a two node cluster. Same issues as above. Luci wants to set two_node = 1 > > in this case instead of just dealing with expected votes = 1. I haven't > > test this because I'm testing all this with node 2 and node 3 while the > > future node 1 is currently our production server. > > > > The ping gateway test/IP tie-breaker was my way of reliably running down > > to last man standing. > > > By the way, I am a C programmer. (From windows land though we use RH on > > all of our servers.) I've spent a month trying to get this to work. It's > > open source and given enough time I can make it go. I don't have any > > more time. It's supposed to be production quality. > > I'm curious if anyone else out there has done this successfully? I doubt > anyone at RH has ever even tried it. It sounds to me like you're outside > the scope of what a person can or should do with this software. BTW, that's not to say that we *shouldn't* work on making this a normal and easily-done thing. You appear to be describing a rational, and relatively obvious use case. Dave -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
