In this scenario do you know how i can do an explict ping to a gateway to add a additional fencing condition? On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Digimer <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/27/2012 11:51 AM, Miguel Angel Guerrero wrote: >> Hi Digimer and Emmanuel >> >> I was trying some tests with my cluster configuration and, in short: >> >> 1. I think something's wrong with my configuration, because when a >> real desconnection (i.e. unplug the cable) happens on the node which >> does not have the sleep in the script (node A), the other node (node >> B) is always stonith'ed, when obviously the node which should reboot >> is the node A. This important to me because I want to know how the >> cluster should behave when a fail over the switch port or the NIC >> occurs. > > A broken link is a broken link. The cluster has no idea whose cable has > been unplugged, only that they can no longer talk to one another. So the > same node being fenced is expected. > > If you want to test an actual failure of the node to confirm that the > node with the sleep will win, hang the nodeA machine. > > You can crash the machine with this; > > echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger > > NodeB will lose contact with NodeA and call it's fence, sleep and then > finish the fence call. NodeA will be completely hung, so it won't even > try to fence and will stay hung until fenced by nodeB. > >> 2. @Emmanuel, could you point me to redhat's documentation about >> this? I tried your solution as this: >> >> <fence_daemon clean_start="0" post_fail_delay="10" post_join_delay="30"/> >> >> But still failed, tthere is another way? >> >> 3. Another solution in this thread is to add a quorum disk to the >> cluster. I began to make this with this manual >> http://www.skau.dk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34:rhcs-cluster-using-iscsi&catid=4:cases-to-explain&Itemid=3 >> >> But I need to replicate the data using only two nodes, and it seems >> that this solution requires three. Could somebody tell me if I'm doing >> it fine/wrong? This causes conflicts when using DRBD? > > Using qdisk on DRBD is a bad idea. Consider a split-brain scenario, the > qdisk could effectively duplicate, completely rendering it's purpose void. > > -- > Digimer > E-Mail: digimer@xxxxxxxxxxx > Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com -- Atte: ------------------------------------ Miguel Angel Guerrero Usuario GNU/Linux Registrado #353531 ------------------------------------ -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
