Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

2016-06-21 Thread Nikhil Utane
Hmm. I will then work towards bringing this in. Thanks for your input. On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Digimer wrote: > On 22/06/16 01:07 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote: > > I don't get it. Pacemaker + Corosync is providing me so much of > > functionality. > > For e.g. if we leave

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

2016-06-21 Thread Digimer
On 22/06/16 01:09 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote: > We are not using virtual IP. There is a separate discovery mechanism > between the server and client. The client will reach out to new server > only if it is incommunicado with the old one. That's fine, but it really doesn't change anything. Whether

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

2016-06-21 Thread Nikhil Utane
I don't get it. Pacemaker + Corosync is providing me so much of functionality. For e.g. if we leave out the condition of split-brain for a while, then it provides: 1) Discovery and cluster formation 2) Synchronization of data 3) Heartbeat mechanism 4) Swift failover of the resource 5) Guarantee

[ClusterLabs] Pacemaker 1.1.15 released

2016-06-21 Thread Ken Gaillot
ClusterLabs is proud to announce the latest release of the Pacemaker cluster resource manager, version 1.1.15. The source code is available at: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/releases/tag/Pacemaker-1.1.15 The most significant enhancements since version 1.1.14 are: * A new "alerts"

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

2016-06-21 Thread Ken Gaillot
On 06/20/2016 11:33 PM, Nikhil Utane wrote: > 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

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

2016-06-21 Thread Digimer
On 21/06/16 01:27 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 06/21/2016 12:13 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > >> You should not run pacemaker without some sort of fencing. This need not >> be network-controlled power socket (and tiebreaker is not directly >> related to fencing). > > Yes it can be

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

2016-06-21 Thread Andrei Borzenkov
21.06.2016 20:05, Dimitri Maziuk пишет: > On 06/21/2016 11:47 AM, Digimer wrote: > >> If you don't need to coordinate services/access, you don't need HA. >> >> If you do need to coordinate services/access, you need fencing. > > So what you're saying is we *cannot* run a pacemaker cluster without

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

2016-06-21 Thread Dimitri Maziuk
On 06/21/2016 11:47 AM, Digimer wrote: > If you don't need to coordinate services/access, you don't need HA. > > If you do need to coordinate services/access, you need fencing. So what you're saying is we *cannot* run a pacemaker cluster without a tiebreaker node *and* a network-controlled

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

2016-06-21 Thread Digimer
On 21/06/16 10:57 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote: > On 2016-06-20 17:19, Digimer wrote: > >> Nikhil indicated that they could switch where traffic went up-stream >> without issue, if I understood properly. > > They have some interesting setup, but that notwithstanding: if split > brain happens some

Re: [ClusterLabs] Node is silently unfenced if transition is very long

2016-06-21 Thread Digimer
On 21/06/16 12:19 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On 06/17/2016 07:05 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >> 03.05.2016 01:14, Ken Gaillot wrote: >>> On 04/19/2016 10:47 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: Hi, Just found an issue with node is silently unfenced. That is quite large setup (2

Re: [ClusterLabs] Node is silently unfenced if transition is very long

2016-06-21 Thread Ken Gaillot
On 06/17/2016 07:05 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: > 03.05.2016 01:14, Ken Gaillot wrote: >> On 04/19/2016 10:47 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Just found an issue with node is silently unfenced. >>> >>> That is quite large setup (2 cluster nodes and 8 remote ones) with >>> a plenty

Re: [ClusterLabs] Recovering after split-brain

2016-06-21 Thread Dmitri Maziuk
On 2016-06-20 17:19, Digimer wrote: Nikhil indicated that they could switch where traffic went up-stream without issue, if I understood properly. They have some interesting setup, but that notwithstanding: if split brain happens some clients will connect to "old master" and some: to "new