On 04/18/2012 04:40 PM, Robert Telka wrote: > Seeing some odd behaviour - is this normal??? > > Goal is to create an active-active environment (from 2 to many serves) > for a webfarm with a clustered filesystem (ocfs2). User-space ocfs2 > (ie, via corosync) is only supported at SLES 11 HAE hence the need for > the corosync middle man. (As an aside, kernel-based ocfs2 will continue > to work with SLES 11 HAE, but is only supported in an Oracle RAC > configuration) > > Cluster config: > Based on SLES 11 HAE SP2 > Created a cloned "base" group consisting of dlm and o2cb resources (both > required for ocfs2 filesystems) > Configured a stonith_sbd resource > Created individual ocfs2 filesystem resources, cloned. Idea is > that individual filesystems can be brought down across the cluster for > maintenance. Each filesystem clone has a startup dependency on the > "base" clone group. and the filesystem clones have all meta-attribute "interleave=true" defined? Regards, Andreas -- Need help with Corosync? http://www.hastexo.com/service/remote > > Two nodes in the cluster (ignoring quorum). Haven't yet tested with > three or more with/without quorum. > > Imagine this scenario: > Server A and B are running; all cloned resources are running on both > nodes (dlm, o2cb, and ocfs2 filesystems mounted) > Server A requires downtime for maintenance (eg, add memory, replace > failed component, etc) > Server A is placed into standby mode, and all resources on that node are > automatically stopped. Quorum is ignored as any applications running on > Server B should continue to run in the event that Server A is powered > off. > When work is complete, Server A is brought back online (from standby) > > The problem: > During the transition of Server A from standby to online, > Corosync/pacemaker stops ALL cloned resources on Server B, and then > starts all resources on Server A and B. > > With filesystem I/O occuring on Server B, the filesystems are abruptly > unmounted and all I/O is terminated. Not good, since any inflight > transactions are lost with potential filesystem/data corruption. > > Is this really the desired behaviour??? Shouldn't the resources be > started on Server A WITHOUT impacting the resources running on other > servers??? > > Is this a "group", "clone", or "clone group" behaviour? > > Thanks to all for helping shed some light. I really hope this isn't a > feature ;-) > > Robert Telka > > > > > Royal Canadian Mounted Police > 1200 Vanier Parkway > CPIC 2-108 > Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R2 > 613-998-6235 > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
