>>> Viet Nguyen <[email protected]> schrieb am 24.02.2022 um 10:28 in Nachricht <CAFfxtUa2_=miVh-qaVAkYHPpmgF8zLHGh9-uYOkf9kVNZdeZ=g...@mail.gmail.com>: > Hi, > > Thank you so so much for your help. May i ask a following up question: > > For the option of having one big cluster with 4 nodes without booth, then, > if one site (having 2 nodes) is down, then the other site does not work as > it does not have quorum, am I right? Even if we have a quorum voter in > either site A or B, then, if the site with quorum down, then, the other > site does not work. So, how can we avoid this situation as I want > that if one site is down, the other site still services?
Obviously you need a third location (or other tie-breaker). > > Regards, > Viet > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 17:08, Jan Friesse <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Viet, >> >> On 22/02/2022 22:37, Viet Nguyen wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Could you please help me out with this question? >> > >> > I have 4 nodes cluster running in the same network but in 2 different >> sites >> > (building A - 2 nodes and building B - 2 nodes). My objective is to >> > setup HA for this cluster with pacemaker. The expectation is if a site is >> > down, the other site still services. >> > >> > From what I could understand so far, in order to make it work, it needs >> to >> > have booth ticket manager installed in a different location, let's say >> > building C which connects to both sites A and B. >> > >> > With this assumption, i would like to ask few questions: >> > >> > 1. Am i right that I need to setup the booth ticket manager as a >> quorum >> > voter as well? >> >> Yes, booth (arbitrator) has to be installed on "site" C if you want to >> use booth. Just keep in mind booth has nothing to do with quorum. >> >> > 2. What happens if the connection between site A and B is down, but >> the >> > connection between A and C, B and C still up? In this case, both >> site A and >> > B still have the quorum as it can connect to C, but not between each >> other? >> >> If you use booth then it's not required site A to see site B. It's then >> "site" C problem to decide which site gets ticket. >> >> >> > 3. Or is there any better way to manage 2 sites cluster, each has 2 >> > nodes? And if one site is down like environmental disaster, then, >> the other >> > site still services. >> >> Basically there are (at least) two possible solutions: >> - Have one big cluster without booth and use pcmk constraints >> - Have two 2 node clusters and use booth. Then each of the two node >> clusters is "independent" (have its own quorum) and each of the cluster >> runs booth (site) as a cluster resource + "site" C running booth >> (arbitrator) >> >> Regards, >> Honza >> >> > >> > >> > Thank you so much for your help! >> > Regards, >> > Viet >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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/
