On 03/27/12 13:56, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Gao,Yan <y...@suse.com> wrote: >> On 03/27/12 10:33, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Jiaju Zhang <jjzh...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 11:50 +0900, Yuichi Seino wrote: >>>>> Hi Jiaju, >>>>> >>>>> I have a question about booth. >>>>> I would like to know if a redundant structure of arbitrator is possible. >>>>> If it is possible, Please tell me how to the approach. >>>> >>>> If I understand the question correctly, you mean that the arbitrator >>>> should be redundant in case it might be down. Well, this can be resolved >>>> by adding more arbitrators, for example, you have 2 sites, and configure >>>> 3 arbitrators. >>> >>> The arbitrator is already redundant isn't it? >>> Because you need a cluster node to fail before an arbitrator failure >>> has any ill-effect. >> I think the term "arbitrator" that Jiaju referred to is the booth daemon >> running on a single machine, which is added to make sure the amount of >> booth daemons are uneven number. > > Right, but making it redundant is only useful if it and one of the > real sites is already down. Right. From this aspect, it's already redundant.
> If you've lost two sites (real + tie-breaker), you already have bigger > issues than validating the sites are really gone and manually granting > a ticket. Makes sense. Regards, Gao,Yan -- Gao,Yan <y...@suse.com> Software Engineer China Server Team, SUSE. _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org