>>> Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> schrieb am 22.04.2017 um 09:05 in Nachricht <ede2cdd3-7020-9f59-90ad-c3b4a0c9e...@gmail.com>: > 18.04.2017 10:47, Ulrich Windl пишет: > ... >>> >>> Now let me come back to quorum vs. stonith; >>> >>> Said simply; Quorum is a tool for when everything is working. Fencing is >>> a tool for when things go wrong. >> >> I'd say: Quorum is the tool to decide who'll be alive and who's going to > die, >> and STONITH is the tool to make nodes die. > > If I had PROD, QA and DEV in a cluster and PROD were separated from > QA+DEV I'd be very sad if PROD were shut down. > > The notion of simple node majority as kill policy is not appropriate as > well as simple node based delays. I wish pacemaker supported scoring > system for resources so that we could base stonith delays on them (the > most important sub-cluster starts fencing first).
So your preference for a 2|1 node split brain scenario is to make the one node survive if it runs the more important resources? > > >> If everything is working you need >> neither quorum nor STONITH. >> > > I wonder how SBD fits into this discussion. It is marketed as stonith > agent, but it is based on committing suicide so relies on well-behaving > nodes. Which we by definition cannot trust to behave well, otherwise > we'd not need stonith in the first place. > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org > http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
