[Linux-cluster] Two node question

[Scott Becker]

I don't have a favorite node, I just want to have failover protection 
when it's running on two nodes because I've removed the third for 
updates and fs checks.

I need the group's wisdom to make sure that's it's likely that the 
cluster will continue to operate down to one functioning node without 
the two_node="1" switch.

If the IP tie-breaker counts for one vote, will the good node maintain 
quorum? Will luci adjust the votes needed properly for this when I make 
the third node leave? If one node fails and a second node fails before I 
fix the first, will quorum be maintained in the last node standing 
(without two_node="1")? I'm not sure what all two_node changes about voting.

    thanks
    scottb


Josh Gray wrote:
> From what i've found,  the safest to do would be modify the number of 
> votes for the node you want to stay up to be a really high number.  I 
> thought about making that my "maintenance mode" situation.
>
> Josh
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Scott Becker wrote:
>
>> I'm building a 3-node cluster.
>>
>> One public subnet.
>>
>> No shared filesystem
>>
>> Starting with just one service (www) on one movable IP address.
>>
>>
>> I will be routinely bring down one node at a time for maintenance so 
>> I must configure the cluster for one node operation. I can't use the 
>> two_node="1" setting because I would have to bring the cluster down 
>> to set and unset it.
>>
>> I want to use an IP tie-breaker to verify that the node can reach the 
>> main router. Is this, along with a self test of the web service, fs 
>> writable, etc. adequate for one, two and three node operation? Or 
>> would I also need a Qdisk?
>>
>>
>>    thanks
>>    scottb
>>
>> -- 
>> Linux-cluster mailing list
>> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
> -- 
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster