Thanks Jeff, I share the same reasons.|
Jeff Sturm wrote:
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.
>From this 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
Hope this helps someone.
> -----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
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com
> >[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On
Behalf Of ext Lon
> >Sent: 2008年10月24日 0:02
> >To: linux clustering
> >Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Two nodes cluster issue without
> >On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 17:10 +0800, Chen, Mockey (NSN -
> >> Hi,
> >> I want to set up a two node cluster, I use active/standby
> >mode to run
> >> my service. I need even one node's hardware failure such
> >power cut,
> >> another node still can handover from failure node and the
> >provide the
> >> service.
> >> In my environment, I have no shared storage, so I can not
> use quorum
> >> disk. Is there any other way to implement it? I searched
> >> 'tiebreaker IP' may feed my request, but I can not found
> >hints on
> >> how to configure it ?
> >Since you have no shared data, you may be able to run
> without fencing.
> >That should be pretty straightforward, but you might need to
> >out the "fenced" startup from the cman init script.
> >In this case, the worst that will happen is both nodes will
> >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
> reboot one of
> >the nodes.
> >-- Lon
> I know such defects in two node cluster.
> Since our service is mission critical, I want to know how to
> avoid such failure case ?
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster redhat com
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster redhat com
Red Hat Certified Engineer
1 Bernard Baruch Way,
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1055