Hello fellow administrator, If you have a SAN... Why can't you have the SAN publish the same LUN to the two cluster nodes simultaneously? It is only used as a raw device, so there should be no ugly filesystem side-effects. Regards, Kit -----Original Message----- From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andreas Bleischwitz Sent: maandag 10 januari 2011 11:25 To: linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Howto define two-node cluster in enterpriseenvironment Hello list, I recently ran into some questions regarding a two-node cluster in an enterprise environment, where single-point-of-failures were tried to be eliminated whenever possible. The situation is the following: Two-node cluster, SAN-based shared storage - multipathed; host-based mirrored, bonded NICS, Quorum device as tie-breaker. Problem: The quorum device is the single-point-of-failure as the SAN-device could fail and hence the quorum-disc wouldn't be accessible. The quorum-disc can't be host-based mirrored, as this would require cmirror - which depends on a quorate cluster. One solution: use storage-based mirroring - with extra costs, limited to no support with mixed storage vendors. Another solution: Use a third - no service - node which has to have the same SAN-connections as the other two nodes out of cluster reasons. This node will idle most of the time and therefore be very uneconomic. How are such situations usually solved using RHCS? There must be a way of configuring a two-nodecluster without having a SPOF defined. HP had a quorum-host with their no longer maintained Service Guard, which could do quorum for more than on cluster at once. Any suggestions appreciated. Best regrads, Andreas Bleischwitz -- 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
