{
ring0_addr: reserve-node
nodeid: 2
}
}
quorum {
provider: corosync_votequorum
two_node: 1
}
Regards,
Maxim.
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Project Home
12.02.2018 16:15, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
On 02/12/2018 01:02 PM, Maxim wrote:
> fencing-disabled is probably due to it being a test-setup ... RHEL 6
> pcs being made for configuring a cman-pacemaker-setup I'm not sure if
> it is advisable to do a setup for a corosync-2 pacema
ce pacemaker to perceive that the node is
down faster?
[Unfortunatly, I've no a hardware that implements fencing abilities
nearby and can't try it myself]
[Seems, it is the last question from my side that is devoted to this topic]
Thank you and Ken for the participation!
Re
12.02.2018 18:46, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
> Maybe a few notes on the other way ;-) In general it is not easy to
> have a reliable answer to the question if the other node is down
> within just let's say 100ms. Think of network-hickups, scheduling
> issues and alike ... But if you are willing to
12.02.2018 19:31, Digimer пишет:
Without fencing, all bets are off. Please enable it and see if the
> issue remains
Seems, i know [in theory] about the fencing ability and its importance
(although I've never configured it so far).
But i don't undestand how it would help in the situtions of
13.02.2018 16:41, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
Let's put that differently. With fencing you can make the
> loss-detection more aggressive and thus more prone to false-positives
> without risking a split-brain situation. (Actually without fencing
> you can never be really sure if the other side is
13.02.2018 16:41, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
Let's put that differently. With fencing you can make the
> loss-detection more aggressive and thus more prone to false-positives
> without risking a split-brain situation. (Actually without fencing
> you can never be really sure if the other side is
