|
Certainly. That third node need not run any
cluster services at all other than fencing, and yet would guarantee a
quorum in the even of loss of any single node.
A quorum disk would theoretically solve this as well, but
for reasons I can't quite articulate I suspect the three-node cluster is
superior. (Besides, we have stockpiles of cheap hardware where I'm at, so
there's little reason for us not to do it.)
Jeff
I have two node cluster only because my storage array
only supports two nodes, can I add a third node without it having access to
the storage? I am using CLVM to run domU's.
Jeff Sturm wrote:
For what it's worth, considerations like these have caused
us to abandon any efforts to build a 2-node cluster.
>From this
point forward all our RHCS deployments will have a minimum of 3 nodes, even
if the 3rd node is a small node that provides no resources and only exists
for arbitration purposes. (It was going to be that, or a quorum disk
for our application, but we have no experience running a quorum disk over
the long-haul in a production envrironment.)
Hope this helps
someone.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx
>
[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Chen,
> Mockey (NSN - CN/Cheng Du)
> Sent: Thursday,
October 23, 2008 10:36 PM
> To: linux clustering
> Subject: RE:
Two nodes cluster issue without
>
sharedstorageissue
>
>
>
> >-----Original
Message-----
> >From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of ext Lon
> >Hohberger
> >Sent: 2008年10月24日
0:02
> >To: linux clustering
> >Subject: Re:
Two nodes cluster issue without shared
>
>storageissue
> >
> >On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 17:10 +0800,
Chen, Mockey (NSN - CN/Cheng Du)
> >wrote:
> >>
Hi,
> >>
> >> I want to set up a two node cluster, I
use active/standby
> >mode to run
> >> my service. I
need even one node's hardware failure such as
> >power cut,
>
>> another node still can handover from failure node and the
>
>provide the
> >> service.
> >>
> >>
In my environment, I have no shared storage, so I can not
> use
quorum
> >> disk. Is there any other way to implement it? I
searched and found
> >> 'tiebreaker IP' may feed my request, but
I can not found any
> >hints on
> >> how to configure
it ?
> >
> >Since you have no shared data, you may be able
to run
> without fencing.
> >
> >That should be
pretty straightforward, but you might need to comment
> >out the
"fenced" startup from the cman init script.
> >
> >In this
case, the worst that will happen is both nodes will end up
>
>running the service at the same time in the event of a network
>
>partition.
> >
> >The other down side is that if the
cluster divides into two
> partitions
> >and later merges
back into one partition, I don't think
> certain things
>
>will work right; you will need to detect this event and
> reboot
one of
> >the nodes.
> >
> >--
Lon
>
> I know such defects in two node cluster.
>
Since our service is mission critical, I want to know how to
> avoid
such failure case ?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
--
> 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
--
Rodrique Heron
|
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
