I'm not sure if this question is better on corosync or pacemaker mailing
list - please advice if I'm wrong.
I have the following setup:
Switch
/ \
/ \
eth0/ \eth0
/ \
Server1 <-------> Server2
eth1
eth1 is used for DRBD replication.
Now I want to use Pacemaker+Corosync to manage DRBD and the database
which uses the DRBD block device as data partition. The database is
accessed via an IP address in the eth0 network.
I need to avoid a split-brain where DRBD becomes master on both server
and the database is started on. I experimented with corosync on eth0 or
eth1 or both (see other mail from today) but didn't find a proper solution.
I think I have to add other constraints to avoid split-brain, e.g.
pinging the default gateway. But pinging has a delay until the ping
primitive in pacemaker detects a failure.
I think adding a 3rd node would also help as then I could use a quorum
to avoid split-brain.
My questions: Where do I handle/avoid split-brain - on corosync layer or
pacemaker layer?
Is there a best practice how to handle such scenarios?
Shall I use corosync over eth0, eth1 or both (rrp)?
If I use a 3rd node just for quorum - is a plain "corosync" node
sufficient or am I using also pacemaker with constraints to never run
the DRBD+database service on node3?
Thanks
Klaus
_______________________________________________
Openais mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
