24.04.2017 09:15, Ulrich Windl пишет: >>>> 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? >
Correct. Except I'm accustomed to call it "application" which is collection of resources. _______________________________________________ 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
