no_quorum_policy="ignore" achieves that, as you said yourself. What it doesn't achieve, is safety for shared data. Hence STONITH.
If you want to run without quorum -> no_quorum_policy (this is really a split-brain prevention setting...) If you want security for shared data -> STONITH. Pick and chose :) Yan Sander van Vugt wrote: > You are absolutely right about the role of STONITH in all this. But: this > doesn't change the fact that my services are stopped if the number of nodes > that remains is below the quorum that is designed. I would really like to > see that even if just one node remains, my services keep running anyway. > > Sander > > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-ha- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Yan Fitterer >> Verzonden: woensdag 27 juni 2007 14:43 >> Aan: General Linux-HA mailing list >> Onderwerp: Re: [Linux-HA] Quorum behavior >> >> STONITH. >> >> Second node fails: 3rd node takes over resources, but only after >> verified power off (or restart) of 2nd node. >> >> Actually - same thing for 1st node. >> >> Challenge: Ensure that you don't lost network AND stonith at the same >> time. >> >> Yan >> >> Sander van Vugt wrote: >>> Hi list, >>> >>> >>> >>> Trying to think out a decent solution here, I run across the following. >> I >>> want to build a three node cluster where some services are running. Now >> the >>> following situation arises: I bring down one node for maintenance. >> Shortly >>> after that a second node fails. This causes the cluster to loose quorum. >> The >>> result? Just to be sure, the default "no_quorum_policy stop" causes the >>> cluster to stop all resources completely! Second attempt: I switch the >>> no_quorum policy to "ignore". The resource keeps on running, so I am >> happy. >>> However, in that situation, if the nodes that fails just has a network >>> failure and can therefore no longer see the rest of the cluster, a >> perfect >>> split brain arises on which the failing node as well as the remaining >> node >>> both start offering the services. Rather uncool if these involve shared >> file >>> systems that are not cluster safe :-). Third scenario: I set no_quorum >>> policy to " freeze". At least, the services continue running on the >>> remaining node, but services that were somewhere else, don't fail over >>> automatically, so: still no high availability. >>> >>> >>> >>> So my question: I want my services to continue running, even if a number >> of >>> nodes remain that is less than the quorum. Is there any way this can be >>> organized? >>> >>> >>> >>> (Version used: 2.08 on SLES 10 sp1) >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Sander >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Linux-HA mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha >>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-HA mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha >> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
