----- On Jan 23, 2019, at 3:20 PM, Klaus Wenninger kwenn...@redhat.com wrote: >> I have corosync-2.3.6-9.13.1.x86_64. >> Where can i configure this value ? > > speaking of two_node & wait_for_all? > That is configured in the quorum-section of corosync.conf: > > quorum { > ... > wait_for_all: 1 > two_node: 1 > ... > } > As Ken mentioned two_node would already imply wait_for_all. > Dependent on the high-level-tooling you are using that might > take care of that configuration already. > > Using 'corosync-cmapctl' to display or directly set keys should > work as well.
corosync-cmapctl -b knows two_node and wait_for_all: ha-idg-1:~ # corosync-cmapctl -b|grep -iE 'wait|two' quorum.two_node (u8) = 1 runtime.votequorum.two_node (u8) = 1 runtime.votequorum.wait_for_all_status (u8) = 1 man 5 votequorum is very helpful. It says: two_node = 1 set the quorum to 1. wait_for_all = 1 requires both nodes to be up for at least a short time simultaneously before the cluster can operate. I see this as a disadvantage. What is if one node has a hw problem which can't be fixed in short time ? > You mentioned 'no-quorum-policy = ignore' before. > Wasn't clear if you have that set at all times. Have seen > howtos suggesting that instead of two_node (probably > coming from times when corosync didn't have 'two_node' > or when quorum was derived by pacemaker directly). > Btw. you probably shouldn't use 'ignore' to prevent the nodes > coming up in parallel without seeing each other - as Ken > mentioned before. > On the other hand startup-fencing - as you've experienced - > would prevent that as well. > But with 'no-quorum-policy = ignore' a node coming up > without connection to the peer would immediately try > to fence the peer - which you definitely wouldn't want > if that one is working properly. Yes, i see that. But corosync and pacemaker aren't start automatically in my setup. Also my fencing action is off and not reboot. These two is to check first "what happened" ? and fix it befroe starting the fenced node again. And my corosync-connection is a bonding device with cables direct to the other server, without a switch. Do you recommend to switch off ignore ? But what is if the cluster is running and one node is fenced ? When i don't have ignore the resources don't continue to run. Is there a hierarchy or a mutual exclusion of two_node and no-quorum-policy ? I would say that no-quorum-policy=ignore, two_node=1 and wait_for_all=0 would be the best for a two-node cluster. > You've probably setup fencing with random-delay or fixed > delays different for each target-node. One agent has a delay of 20 seconds, the other has no delay. Bernd Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH) Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1 85764 Neuherberg www.helmholtz-muenchen.de Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende: MinDirig'in Petra Steiner-Hoffmann Stellv.Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: MinDirig. Dr. Manfred Wolter Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Dr. med. Dr. h.c. Matthias Tschoep, Heinrich Bassler Registergericht: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 6466 USt-IdNr: DE 129521671 _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org https://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