On 28/02/14 05:55 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2014-02-27T11:05:21, Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote:
So regardless of quorum, fencing is required. It is the only way to
reliably avoid split-brains. Unfortunately, fencing doesn't work on stretch
clusters.
For a two node stretch cluster, sbd can also be used reliably as a
fencing mechanism.
It essentially uses the standard iSCSI protocol as a quorum mechanism.
Export one (1MB or so) iSCSI LU from each site to the other, and in the
best case, host one at a 3rd site as tie-breaker. Then run SBD across
these.
booth is striving to address even longer distances, where each site is a
truly separate cluster (e.g., independent corosync/pacemaker setups,
totem not running across the gap).
Regards,
Lars
Assuming a SAN in each location (otherwise you have a single point of
failure), then isn't it still possible to end up with a split-brain
if/when the WAN link fails?
Something (drbd?) is going to be keeping the data in sync between the
locations. If both assume the other is dead, sure each location's SAN
will block the other node, but then each location will proceed
independently and their data will diverge, right?
--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
