Thanks Digimer for clarifying....
I am trying to create the following setup or rather will say I have been asked to do so .
=====
Cluster Name: ClusterA
Node1: system1.example.com Priority:1 in Failover Domain
Node2: system2.example.com Priority:2 in Failover Domain
File System Resource : /data1 - An ext3 file system
=====
Cluster Name : ClusterB
Node1: system1.example.com Priority:2 in Failover Domain
Node2: system2.example.com Priority:1 in Failover Domain
File System Resource : /data2 - An ext3 file system
========================================================
What I will achieve with this scenario , is that both the nodes will always be in active mode as one node is having higher priority in Failover Domain in one cluster and the other node has higher priority in the other cluster as shown above. This means that both the file system resource will always be available in either of the nodes. And if a node goes down ' suppose system1.example.com ' which is active in 'ClusterA' , cluster , the file system resource /data1 on the cluster will be mounted on system2.example.com which is already having /data2 mounted on 'ClusterB'
So , based on the above architecture , we are achieving the following
1) Both the mount points will be always available and
2) Both the nodes will be utilized as both the nodes will be in active mode in either of the cluster .
Node1: system1.example.com Priority:1 in Failover Domain
Node2: system2.example.com Priority:2 in Failover Domain
File System Resource : /data1 - An ext3 file system
=====
Cluster Name : ClusterB
Node1: system1.example.com Priority:2 in Failover Domain
Node2: system2.example.com Priority:1 in Failover Domain
File System Resource : /data2 - An ext3 file system
========================================================
What I will achieve with this scenario , is that both the nodes will always be in active mode as one node is having higher priority in Failover Domain in one cluster and the other node has higher priority in the other cluster as shown above. This means that both the file system resource will always be available in either of the nodes. And if a node goes down ' suppose system1.example.com ' which is active in 'ClusterA' , cluster , the file system resource /data1 on the cluster will be mounted on system2.example.com which is already having /data2 mounted on 'ClusterB'
So , based on the above architecture , we are achieving the following
1) Both the mount points will be always available and
2) Both the nodes will be utilized as both the nodes will be in active mode in either of the cluster .
Will be great if you have some inputs to achieve the same .
Thanks
Zaman
From: Digimer <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Zama Ques <queszama@xxxxxxxx>; linux clustering <linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2012 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Creating two different cluster using same set of nodes.
On 08/01/2012 07:56 AM, Zama Ques wrote:
> Hi All ,
>
> Need clarifications whether it is possible to create two different
> cluster using the same set of nodes.
>
> Looks like Redhat Cluster Suite does not support creating different
> clusters using the same nodes. I am getting the following
> error while building the second cluster using the same nodes using luci
> interface .
>
> ====
> [dismiss]
>
> The following errors occurred:
> * Host system3.example.com is already a member of the cluster named
> "ClusterA"
> * Host system4.example.com is already a member of the cluster named
> "ClusterA"
> ===
>
> My query is that does Redhat Cluster Suite allows in any way to create
> two different clusters using same nodes. If not , any reason for not
> allowing this feature?.
>
>
> Thanks in Advance
> Zaman
It is not possible, no. A node must be in one cluster only.
May I ask why you're trying to do this?
--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
