On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:07:54 -0400 Sherrard Burton <sb-clusterl...@allafrica.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/20 3:09 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >>>> Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <j...@dalibo.com> schrieb am 07.04.2020 um > >>>> 23:02 in > > Nachricht > > <20140_1586293370_5E8CEA7A_20140_452_1_20200407230230.1bc9b7b0@firost>: > >> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 14:13:35 -0400 > >> Sherrard Burton <sb-clusterl...@allafrica.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > >> But the best protection is to disable pacemaker on boot so an admin can > >> investigate the situation and join back the node safely. > > > > Actually before pacemaker we had a two-node cluster running without > > problems. Maybe pacemaker should fix two-node mode. Requiring manual > > intervention should be an absolute exception; instead the fenced node > > should integrate to the existing cluster, or form a new cluster. Both > > correctly, of course... > > i concur completely. requiring manual intervention mostly defeats the > purpose of running a cluster manager. Well considering resources like a database or filesystem, an auto-failback of a node with corrupted data might be dangerous. _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
