On 2013-07-08T10:13:50, Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote:
> >While in general I agree, the above failure case is not likely with
> >DRBD.
> >
> It was one example.
Yes, but the use case here happened to be drbd, and thus replicated (not
shared) storage.
> You are right though, the "good" node would disconnect,
> so the result would be a split-brain.
Not necessarily, if an automatic recovery policy is configured.
> Still a poor outcome easily avoided with fencing.
True - but it is also true that there are scenarios where fencing (in
the traditional sense; effectively, the fact that each DRBD copy is
independent does provide some form of IO isolation) isn't an option, and
where possibly rolling back a transaction (worst case for drbd, I'd
wager) is not considered critical.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
