Thank you. Comprehensively answered.
On 1 Sep 2016 6:27 PM, "Kristoffer Grönlund" <kgronl...@suse.com> wrote: > Darren Thompson <darr...@akurit.com.au> writes: > > > Just a quick question: > > > > If "scripts: no-quorum-policy=ignore" is becoming depreciated, how are we > > to manage two node (e.g. test) clusters that require this work around > since > > quorum state on a single node is an odd state. > > > > Hi Darren, > > There are better mechanisms in corosync and Pacemaker for handling two > node clusters now while still maintaining quorum. > > In corosync 2, we have the two_node: 1 setting for votequorum, which > ensures that a two node cluster doesn't suffer split brain (fencing is > required for this to work properly). > > There is an explanation for how this works here: > > http://people.redhat.com/ccaulfie/docs/Votequorum_Intro.pdf > > Somewhat related, there used to be the start-delay meta parameter which > could be set for example for sbd stonith resources, to make a > double-fencing scenario less likely. This has now been replaced by the > pcmk_delay_max parameter. For an example of how to use this, see this > pull request for sbd: > > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/sbd/pull/15/commits/ > ca2fba836eab169f0c8cacf7f3757c0485bcfef8 > > Cheers, > Kristoffer > > -- > // Kristoffer Grönlund > // kgronl...@suse.com >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org 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