So far, I never had a cluster with nodes directly connected to the same switches. Usually it's a nodeA -> switchA -> switchB -> nodeB and sometimes connectivity between switches goes down (for example a firewall rule).
Best Regards, Strahil Nikolov В сряда, 28 юли 2021 г., 15:51:36 ч. Гринуич+3, john tillman <jo...@panix.com> написа: > Technically you could give one vote to one node and zero to the other. > If they lose contact only the server with one vote would make quorum. > The downside is that if the server with 1 vote goes down the entire > cluster comes to a halt. > > > That said, if both nodes can reach the same switch that they are > connected to each other through, why can't they reach each other? > "... why can't they reach each other?" My question as well. It feels like a very low probability thing to me. Some blockage/filtering/delay of the cluster's "quorum packets" while ping packets were allowed through, perhaps caused by network congestion. But I'm not a network engineer. Any network engineers reading this care to comment? Thanks for echoing my thoughts and that interesting quorum-weight idea. > > On 7/26/21 12:21 PM, john tillman wrote: >> They would continue running their resources and we would have split >> brain. >> >> So there is no safe way to support a two node cluster 100% of the time. >> But when all you have are two nodes and a switch ... well, when life >> gives >> you lemons ... > > _______________________________________________ > Manage your subscription: > https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/ > _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/ _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
