Re: [ClusterLabs] HA Cluster and Fencing

2015-09-03 Thread Ken Gaillot
On 09/03/2015 11:44 AM, Streeter, Michelle N wrote:
> I was trying to get a HA Cluster working but it was not failing over.   In 
> past posts, someone kept asking me to get the fencing working and make it a 
> priority.  So I finally got the fencing to work with VBox.  And the fail over 
> finally started working for my HA cluster.   When I tried to explain this to 
> my lead, he didn't believe me that the fencing was the issue with the fail 
> over.   So, would someone help me understand why this happened so I can 
> explain it to my lead.   Also, when I was trying to get Pacemaker 1.1.11 
> working, it was failing over fine without the fencing but when I added more 
> than one drive to be serviced by the cluster via NFS.   The drives were being 
> serviced by  both nodes almost as if it was load balancing.  It was suggested 
> back then to get the fencing working.   So I take it if I went back to that 
> version, this would have fixed the issue.  Would you also help me explain why 
> this is true?
> 
> Michelle Streeter
> ASC2 MCS - SDE/ACL/SDL/EDL OKC Software Engineer
> The Boeing Company

Hi Michelle,

Congratulations on getting fencing working.

There's not enough information about your configuration to answer your
questions, but fencing is more a requirement for general cluster
stability rather than a solution to the specific problems you were facing.

Regarding load-balancing, I'm not sure whether you mean that a single
resource was started on multiple nodes, or different resources were
spread out on multiple nodes.

If one resource is active on multiple nodes, that means it was defined
as a clone or master-slave resource in your configuration. Clones are
used for active-active HA. If you want active-passive, where the
resource is only active on one node, don't clone it.

If instead you mean that multiple resources were spread out among nodes,
that's Pacemaker's default behavior. If you want two resources to always
be started together on the same node, you need to define a colocation
constraint for them (as well as an ordering constraint if one has to
start before the other), or put them in a resource group.

___
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


Re: [ClusterLabs] HA Cluster and Fencing

2015-09-03 Thread Kai Dupke
On 09/03/2015 06:44 PM, Streeter, Michelle N wrote:
>  Would you also help me explain why this is true?

Mind to give us more details? What exact setup? What was in the logs?

Just in case, clustering without fencing is a pretty bad idea in
general, and in special when data is not only read-only accessed by the
nodes.

greetings
Kai Dupke
Senior Product Manager
Server Product Line
-- 
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power.
Phone:  +49-(0)5102-9310828 Mail: kdu...@suse.com
Mobile: +49-(0)173-5876766  WWW:  www.suse.com

SUSE Linux GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg (Germany)
GF:Felix Imendörffer,Jane Smithard,Graham Norton,HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

___
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