Nicolas Ross wrote:
With a quorum disk, you can in fact have one node left and still have
quorum. This is because the quorum drive should have (node-1) votes,
thus always giving the last node 50%+1 even with all other nodes
being dead.
I've never tried testing that use-case extensively, but I suspect that
it is only safe to do with SAN-side fencing. Otherwise two nodes could
lose contact with each other and still both have access to the SAN and
thus both be individually quorate.
I our case, a particular node will run a particular service from a
particular directory in the disk. So, even if 2 nodes looses contacts to
each other, they should not end up writing or reading from the same
files. Am I wrong ?
If two nodes lose contact to each other, one will fence each other and
shut it down.
If you don't need concurrent access, then why do you need a cluster file
system?
Gordan
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
