Please start a new thread, with a new subject, and include your cluster.conf file please. Digimer On 07/11/2012 05:57 AM, AKIN ÿffffffffffd6ZTOPUZ wrote: > Hi > > I have 2-nodes cluster without quorum disks.ı noticed a problem at below: > > > when I want to move resources to other node it is failed to relocate > services to other node and again services run the orginal node. > > but when I want to restart node it is ok > > could you have any ideas? > > *From:* Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto@xxxxxxxxxx> > *To:* linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 3, 2012 7:04 AM > *Subject:* Re: CLVM in a 3-node cluster > > On 07/02/2012 11:39 PM, urgrue wrote: >> On 2/7/12 19:14, Digimer wrote: >>> On 07/02/2012 01:08 PM, urgrue wrote: >>>> I'm trying to set up a 3-node cluster with clvm. Problem is, one node >>>> can't access the storage, and I'm getting: >>>> Error locking on node node3: Volume group for uuid not found: <snip> >>>> whenever I try to activate the LVs on one of the working nodes. >>>> >>>> This can't be "by design", can it? >>> >>> Does pvscan show the right device? Are all nodes in the cluster? What >>> does 'cman_tool status' and 'dlm_tool ls' show? >>> >> >> Sorry, I realize now I was misleading, let me clarify: >> The third node cannot access the storage, this is by design. I have >> three datacenters but only two have access to the active storage. The >> third datacenter only has an async copy, and will only activate >> (manually) in case of a massive disaster (failure of both the other >> datacenters). >> So I deliberately have a failover domain with only node1 and node2. >> node3's function is to provide quorum, but also be able to be activated >> (manually is fine) in case of a massive disaster. >> In other words node3 is part of the cluster, but it can't see the >> storage during normal operation. >> Looking at it another way, it's kind of as if we had a 3-node cluster >> where one node had an HBA failure but is otherwise working. Surely node1 >> and node2 should be able to continue running the services? >> So my question is, do I have an error somehwere, or is clvm really >> actually not able to function without all nodes being active and able to >> access storage? > > CLVM requires a consistent view of the storage from all nodes in the > cluster. This is by design. > > A storage failure during operations (aka you start with all nodes able > to access the storage and then downgrade) is handle correctly. > > Fabio > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 > -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
