Tim, I'm not sure if you can help but this site with jms codes is ruining my life. The responsibility of the actions of others is not being taken. Please stop it. I am beginning to beg for help On May 2, 2016 11:46 PM, "Tim Bain [via ActiveMQ]" < ml-node+s2283324n4711461...@n4.nabble.com> wrote:
> It's not possible to have a quorum (i.e. > 50%) in all scenarios when you > only have two groupings and both of them could disappear entirely. By > definition, to have a quorum after the loss of one grouping, the lost > grouping must be < 50% and the one that remains must be > 50%, so in the > inverse situation you can't possibly have a quorum. This is why three is > typically the number used to ensure survivability of the loss of a single > item (whether an "item" is a process, a host, a rack, or a datacenter). > So > either you need a third datacenter in a third location, or you need to put > two groupings in a single geographic site (in separate buildings, for > example, or different floors or rooms, or on the other side of town), and > accept that you're sacrificing the ability to survive certain catastrophes > in order to save the cost of locating the third datacenter somewhere > geographically distant. > > Tim > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:37 AM, sekaijin <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4711461&i=0>> > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > There is a little thing I do not understand in the election of the > master. > > > > I have two geographic site (Paris, Versailles). > > the quorum is (n / 2) +1 > > if I have two servers in each site > > the quorum is (4/2) +1 = 3 > > so if I have a blackout on the site (eg fire) I do not have the quorum > > because I have only two servers > > > > if I have two server on a site and on the other > > the quorum is (3/2) +1 = 2 > > so if I have a blackout on first site (eg fire) I do not have a quorum > > because I have only one server > > > > It is impossible to secure the cluster? > > > > A+JYT > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/clustering-architecture-tp4711412p4711418.html > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > ------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/clustering-architecture-tp4711412p4711461.html > To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - User, email > ml-node+s2283324n2341805...@n4.nabble.com > To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ - User, click here > <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=2341805&code=SmVubmlmZXJzdGFjZXlzb3V0aGFyZEBnbWFpbC5jb218MjM0MTgwNXwtMTM1MDkyOTA0Nw==> > . > NAML > <http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml> > -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/clustering-architecture-tp4711412p4711543.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
