Dear David, thank you very much for you help. I will look into the details now 
that you have given me a direction, myself.
Again thank you for your time!

Best Regards




________________________________
 From: David Coulson <[email protected]>
To: Hermes Flying <[email protected]> 
Cc: General Linux-HA mailing list <[email protected]>; Digimer 
<[email protected]> 
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] Some help on understanding how HA issues are addressed 
by pacemaker
 

Already told you. If you are running two-node, make sure your fencing works and 
you have reliable connectivity between nodes.

if that isn't good enough, add a third node.


On 12/1/12 8:58 AM, Hermes Flying wrote:

Actually each Tomcat uses a back-end database that has the notion of 
"primary/backup".
>I am trying to figure out if by using Pacemaker facilities I can
        avoid splitbrain in the database as well. So far from what you
        described I seem to get away with it meaning that by fencing,
        linux-1 will stop so the secondary database in lunux-2 will
        become primary.
>Am I on the right track here? If you have any recommendations
        for my setup (2 linux running: 2 LB/2Tomcat/2Databases) please
        let me know!
>Thank you for your time!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: David Coulson <[email protected]>
>To: Hermes Flying <[email protected]> 
>Cc: General Linux-HA mailing list <[email protected]>; Digimer 
><[email protected]> 
>Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 3:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] Some help on understanding how HA issues are addressed 
>by pacemaker
> 
>
>
>
>On 12/1/12 8:48 AM, Hermes Flying wrote:
>
>Great help! Please allow me to trouble you with one last question.
>>
>>If I get this, when I use fencing and the corosync
                    fails then linux-2 will attempt to crash linux-1 and
                    take over. At this point though linux-1 won't try to
                    do anything right? Since it knows it is the primary,
                    I mean.
>>
>linux-1 will be powered off or crashed, so i think that
                speaks for itself.
>
>
>>Then you say:"Any resource previously running on
                    linux-1 will be started on linux-2."
>>Now at this point: By resource you mean only
                    pacemaker and its related modules, right? Because I
                    want  Tomcat to be up and running and receiving
                    requests in Linux-2 as well, which will be forwarded
                    by load balancer of linux-1. Is this correct?
>>
>I mean 'resources managed by pacemaker'. So if you VIP
                was running on linux-1, and it fails, and linux-2 fences
                it, the only place the VIP can run is linux-2. linux-1
                is totally down.
>
>
>>Also in your setup of 2 NICs or 2 switches I assume
                    that the idea is that the probability of split-brain
                    due to network failure is very low right? Because I
                    have read that it is not possible to avoid
                    split-brain without adding a third node. But I may
                    be misunderstanding this
>>
A third node will eliminate split brain by definition, as quorum will only be 
obtained if a minimum of two nodes are available.
>
>If you have a diverse network configuration and good
                change management, you're probably not going to
                experience a split brain unless you have a substantial
                environment failure that will probably impact your
                client ability to access anything. Since you are not
                running shared storage, you're not going to experience
                data loss which is typically the biggest concern with
                split brain.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems

Reply via email to