On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 16:56 +1100, 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. > 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.
Yes, if 2 of 3 is down, the ticket will be revoked by booth. Thanks, Jiaju _______________________________________________ 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
