On 2021-04-28 10:10 a.m., Ken Gaillot wrote: > On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 23:23 -0400, Digimer wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I noticed something odd. >> >> ==== >> [root@an-a02n01 ~]# pcs cluster status >> Cluster Status: >> Cluster Summary: >> * Stack: corosync >> * Current DC: an-a02n01 (version 2.0.4-6.el8_3.2-2deceaa3ae) - >> partition with quorum >> * Last updated: Tue Apr 27 23:20:45 2021 >> * Last change: Tue Apr 27 23:12:40 2021 by root via cibadmin on >> an-a02n01 >> * 2 nodes configured >> * 12 resource instances configured (4 DISABLED) >> Node List: >> * Online: [ an-a02n01 ] >> * OFFLINE: [ an-a02n02 ] >> >> PCSD Status: >> an-a02n01: Online >> an-a02n02: Offline >> ==== >> [root@an-a02n01 ~]# pcs cluster stop >> Error: Stopping the node will cause a loss of the quorum, use --force >> to >> override >> ==== >> >> Shouldn't pcs know it's the last node and shut down without >> complaint? > > It knows, it's just not sure you know :) > > pcs's design philosophy is to hand-hold users by default and give > expert users --force. > > The idea in this case is that (especially in 3-to-5-node clusters) > someone might not realize that stopping one node could make all > resources stop cluster-wide.
This makes total sense in 3+ node cluster. However, when you're asking the last node in a two-node cluster to stop, then it seems odd. Perhaps overriding this behaviour when 2-node is set? In any case, I'm calling this from a program and that means I need to use '--force' all the time (or add some complex logic of my own, which I can do). Well anyway, now I know it was intentional. :) -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com/w/ "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
