Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

Let me give the full picture about our solution. It will then make it easy to have the discussion. We are looking at providing N + 1 Redundancy to our application servers, i.e. 1 standby for upto N active (currently N<=5). Each server will have some unique configuration. The standby will store

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

On 20/06/16 05:58 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 06/20/2016 03:58 PM, Digimer wrote: > >> Then wouldn't it be a lot better to just run your services on both nodes >> all the time and take HA out of the picture? Availability is predicated >> on building the simplest system possible. If you have no

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

On 06/20/2016 03:58 PM, Digimer wrote: > Then wouldn't it be a lot better to just run your services on both nodes > all the time and take HA out of the picture? Availability is predicated > on building the simplest system possible. If you have no concerns about > uncoordinated access, then make

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

On 20/06/16 09:30 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote: > Hi, > > For our solution we are making a conscious choice to not use > quorum/fencing as for us service availability is more important than > having 2 nodes take up the same active role. Split-brain is not an issue > for us (at least i think that way)

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

On 06/20/2016 08:30 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote: > Hi, > > For our solution we are making a conscious choice to not use > quorum/fencing as for us service availability is more important than > having 2 nodes take up the same active role. Split-brain is not an issue > for us (at least i think that way)

Re: [ClusterLabs] Cluster reboot fro maintenance

On 06/20/2016 07:45 AM, ma...@nucleus.it wrote: > Hi, > i have a two node cluster with some vms (pacemaker resources) running on > the two hypervisors: > pacemaker-1.0.10 > corosync-1.3.0 > > I need to do maintenance stuff , so i need to: > - put on maintenance the cluster so the cluster doesn't

Re: [ClusterLabs] restarting pacemakerd

On 06/18/2016 05:15 AM, Ferenc Wágner wrote: > Hi, > > Could somebody please elaborate a little why the pacemaker systemd > service file contains "Restart=on-failure"? I mean that a failed node > gets fenced anyway, so most of the time this would be a futile effort. > On the other hand, one

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

On 2016-06-20 09:13, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: I've heard multiple time this kind of argument on the field, but soon or later, these clusters actually had a split brain scenario with clients connected on both side, some very bad corruptions, data lost, etc. I'm sure it's a very

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

Le Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:00:12 +0530, Nikhil Utane a écrit : > Hi, > > For our solution we are making a conscious choice to not use quorum/fencing > as for us service availability is more important than having 2 nodes take > up the same active role. Split-brain is not

[ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

Hi, For our solution we are making a conscious choice to not use quorum/fencing as for us service availability is more important than having 2 nodes take up the same active role. Split-brain is not an issue for us (at least i think that way) since we have a second line of defense. We have clients

[ClusterLabs] Cluster reboot fro maintenance

Hi, i have a two node cluster with some vms (pacemaker resources) running on the two hypervisors: pacemaker-1.0.10 corosync-1.3.0 I need to do maintenance stuff , so i need to: - put on maintenance the cluster so the cluster doesn't touch/start/stop/monitor the vms - update the vms - stop the