Certainly. That third node need not run any
cluster services at all other than fencing, and yet would guarantee a
quorum in the even of loss of any single node.
A quorum disk would theoretically solve this as well, but
for reasons I can't quite articulate I suspect the three-node cluster is
superior. (Besides, we have stockpiles of cheap hardware where I'm at, so
there's little reason for us not to do it.)
I have two node cluster only because my storage array
only supports two nodes, can I add a third node without it having access to
the storage? I am using CLVM to run domU's.
Jeff Sturm wrote:
For what it's worth, considerations like these have caused
us to abandon any efforts to build a 2-node cluster.
point forward all our RHCS deployments will have a minimum of 3 nodes, even
if the 3rd node is a small node that provides no resources and only exists
for arbitration purposes. (It was going to be that, or a quorum disk
for our application, but we have no experience running a quorum disk over
the long-haul in a production envrironment.)
Hope this helps
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com
[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On
Behalf Of Chen,
> Mockey (NSN - CN/Cheng Du)
> Sent: Thursday,
October 23, 2008 10:36 PM
> To: linux clustering
> Subject: RE:
[Linux-cluster] Two nodes cluster issue without
> >From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com
>[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On
Behalf Of ext Lon
> >Sent: 2008年10月24日
> >To: linux clustering
> >Subject: Re:
[Linux-cluster] Two nodes cluster issue without shared
> >On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 17:10 +0800,
Chen, Mockey (NSN - CN/Cheng Du)
> >> I want to set up a two node cluster, I
> >mode to run
> >> my service. I
need even one node's hardware failure such as
> >power cut,
>> another node still can handover from failure node and the
> >> service.
In my environment, I have no shared storage, so I can not
> >> disk. Is there any other way to implement it? I
searched and found
> >> 'tiebreaker IP' may feed my request, but
I can not found any
> >hints on
> >> how to configure
> >Since you have no shared data, you may be able
> without fencing.
> >That should be
pretty straightforward, but you might need to comment
> >out the
"fenced" startup from the cman init script.
> >In this
case, the worst that will happen is both nodes will end up
>running the service at the same time in the event of a network
> >The other down side is that if the
cluster divides into two
> >and later merges
back into one partition, I don't think
> certain things
>will work right; you will need to detect this event and
> >the nodes.
> I know such defects in two node cluster.
Since our service is mission critical, I want to know how to
such failure case ?
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster redhat com
Linux-cluster redhat com