>>> Jorge Fábregas <[email protected]> schrieb am 06.09.2015 um 22:23 in Nachricht <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I was reading one of the latest posts [1] from Andrew Beekhof on SBD and > got me into thinking... > > Assume an active/active cluster using OCFS2 and SBD with shared storage. > Then one node explodes (the hardware watchdog is gone as well > obviously). At this point my guess is that the remaining node will > notice that its partner hasn't updated its mailbox slot on the SBD > shared-storage. > > My question: Is this enough proof (confirmation) that the other node > isn't capable of causing corruption? And so...will DLM/OCFS2 resume > operation?
IMHO it will wor differently: If the node goes down, the network layer (corosync) will notice that (sooner or later depending on some settings). The a remaining node will try a fencing operation. After some time (also configurable) the remaining nodes will assume the other node was fenced successfully. I doesn not mean that anything actually happened, but that's the way it's designed. You'll have to make sure things work as configured. > > Thanks, > Jorge > > [1]: http://blog.clusterlabs.org/blog/2015/sbd-fun-and-profit/ > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list: [email protected] > http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
