[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Linux-cluster] network tiebreaker required for a two node cluster?



Re: [Linux-cluster] Why Redhat replace quorum partition/lock lun with new fencing mechanisms?

Kevin Anderson wrote:
If you have access to shared storage, then a two node cluster with
quorum disk/fencing would be a better configuration and could be the
recommended configuration.  However, there are still cases where you
could have a two node cluster with no shared storage.  Depends on how
the application is sharing state or accessing data.  But for an
active/passive two node failover cluster, I can see where the quorum
disk will be very popular.

Kevin

When configuring the cluquorumd for a two node cluster (active-active nfs server), the GUI recommends using a network tiebreaker ip address. Why is that?

Under heavier network load, we occasionally see one of the members (usually the highest priority member) reporting that the connection to the tiebreaker is offline. It subsequently gets fenced by the other node, and simply reboots. (FWIIW, we checked the network cards, cables, and switch and swithc-ports between the two nodes. The system that holds the TB address is currently waiting to be re-installed, so it's pretty much idle.)

I thought the network tiebreaker was meant to avoid a split-brain cluster, but if it isn't, needless to say, we'd be happy to get rid of it.

Kind regards,

Herta

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]