On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 14:56 +0930, David Monro wrote: > The most likely failure scenario for us at the moment is complete loss > of the ethernet network between the 2 sites, with the SAN remaining up. > Obviously in this case both nodes will be unable to see the other, and > in addition will be unable to fence each other. That's unfortunate. ;) > In the case where I do not use a quorum disk, what will happen? I would > have to guess that the answer will be a dead cluster, since neither node > can succeed at fencing the other. Correct. > In the case where I do use a quorum disk, what will happen? Well, since fencing is required when using a quorum disk, the effect will be the same. The quorum disk can be used to help decide *who* is allowed to fence. > I did look at other fencing options as well, but I can't use fence_scsi > (because we use dm_multipath - a pity because its about the one thing > which actually should work for this scenario I think!), or fence_brocade > (because the node can't get to the ethernet port on the switch in the > other site). That should be fixed in 5.2 (I think?) -- Lon -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
