On 6/2/21 10:47 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
lge> > I would have expected corosync to come back with a "stable
lge> > non‑quorate membership" of just itself within a very short
lge> > period of time, and pacemaker winning the
lge> > "election"/"integration" with just itself, and then trying
lge> > t
lge> > I would have expected corosync to come back with a "stable
lge> > non‑quorate membership" of just itself within a very short
lge> > period of time, and pacemaker winning the
lge> > "election"/"integration" with just itself, and then trying
lge> > to call "stop" on everything it knows about.
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:18 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I can't answer, but I doubt the usefulness of "no-quorum-
> policy=stop":
> If nodes loose quorum, they try to stop all resources, but "remain"
> in the
> cluster (will respond to network queries (if any arrive).
> If one of those "s
Hi!
I can't answer, but I doubt the usefulness of "no-quorum-policy=stop":
If nodes loose quorum, they try to stop all resources, but "remain" in the
cluster (will respond to network queries (if any arrive).
If one of those "stop"s fails, the other part of the cluster never knows.
So what can be d