Re: [DRBD-user] Avoiding data inconsistencies after a split-brain

2010-04-19 Thread Lars Ellenberg
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 08:40:02AM -0300, Andre Nathan wrote: > Hello Lars > > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 21:38 +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > > disk { > > fencing resource-and-stonith; > > # this mode implicitly freezes IO and only resumes IO if peer is > > # successfully fenced as reporte

Re: [DRBD-user] Avoiding data inconsistencies after a split-brain

2010-04-19 Thread Andre Nathan
Hello Lars On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 21:38 +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > disk { > fencing resource-and-stonith; > # this mode implicitly freezes IO and only resumes IO if peer is > # successfully fenced as reported by the fence peer script. > # Or if the admin explicitly resum

Re: [DRBD-user] Avoiding data inconsistencies after a split-brain

2010-04-16 Thread Lars Ellenberg
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 02:02:22PM -0300, Andre Nathan wrote: > Hello > > I'm setting up a two-node active/active cluster with DRBD and OCFS2. > When the nodes lose communication with one another, a split-brain > happens, and both machines and up in the stand-alone/active state. > > One possible

[DRBD-user] Avoiding data inconsistencies after a split-brain

2010-04-16 Thread Andre Nathan
Hello I'm setting up a two-node active/active cluster with DRBD and OCFS2. When the nodes lose communication with one another, a split-brain happens, and both machines and up in the stand-alone/active state. One possible solution to minimize the amount of time where writes can be done to both nod