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 really gone!) But
> to be honest if you are really behind sub-second
> detection/switchover I'm not sure if fencing - at least with the
> current implementation in pacemaker and the current selection of
> fencing-devices - will give you satisfactory results.
> If you don't have any of the usual fencing-devices available you
> might have some kind of a shared-disk that might be usable with SBD.
> For a 2-node-cluster with a single shared-disk (as in your case if I
> got it correctly) assure to pick an SBD-version that has
>
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/sbd/commit/4bd0a66da3ac9c9afaeb8a2468cdd3ed51ad3377.
>
> But again I doubt that this will work reliably with sub-second
requirements.
> Not saying I'm not interested in experiences/requirements with
> pacemaker doing failovers in a sub-second or more relaxed
> low-single-digit-second timeframe. Seeing this working reliably would
> open up pacemaker for a completely new class of applications.
>
> Regards, Klaus
I was in a sceptical mind too... especially when i've seen the monitor
intervals of pacemaker resource agents :D
So <1 sec timings for an issue_detection & resource_moves seems are
unachiavable by facilities of the current cluster software. By the
architectural reasons as well.
Thank you for the support and proposals.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.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
