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

RE: [Linux-cluster] IP-based tie-breaker on a 2-node cluster?



On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 17:46 +0100, gordan bobich net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Andrew Lacey wrote:
> 
> >> but you could also just tune deadnode_timeout to be different on both
> >> nodes: this results the behaviour Gordan told - the node that has smaller
> >> deadnode_timeout would fence first.
> >
> > Would this work in a situation where the switch was down for a few
> > minutes? Suppose the deadnode_timeout is 30 seconds on one node and 60
> > seconds on the other. So, after 60 seconds of switch downtime, both nodes
> > would be trying to fence. If the switch comes up after being down for 5
> > minutes, they would still immediately fence each other. Or am I not
> > thinking about this correctly?
> 
> There's an argument that if your switch is down for 30 minutes, you 
> have bigger problems. If you have a 30 minute switch outage, the chances 
> are that you can live with the node power-up time on top of that.

... or an argument that maybe the 'sleep' delay in a fencing agent on a
given node isn't necessarily a bad thing after all :D

-- Lon


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