Hi All, we are currently looking at nearly the same issue, in fact I just wanted to start a similarly titled thread when I stumbled over these messages…
The setup we are evaluating is actually a 2*N-node-cluster, i.e. two slightly separated sites with N nodes each. The main difference to an N-node-cluster is that a failure of one of the two groups of nodes must be considered a single failure event [against which the cluster must protect, e.g. loss of power at one site]. As far as I gather from this, and other, mail threads, there is currently no out-of-the-box quorum-something solution for pacemaker. Before I start digging deeper [into possible solutions], there's one question I need to ask: In a pacemaker + corosync setup, who decides whether a partition has quorum? I.e, would a quorum-device mechanism need to be integrated with corosync, or with pacemaker, or with both? Thanks, Colin _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
