On 28.10.2021 20:13, Gerry R Sommerville wrote: > > What we also found to be interesting is that if the cluster is only using a > single heartbeat ring, then srv-2 will get fenced instead, and the
So as already suspected you did not actually isolate the node at all. > pacemaker-remote connection resources will successfully fail over without any > additional fencing to the remote nodes themselves. It seems a little > backwards > to us since our reasoning for configuring multiple heartbeat rings was to > increase the clusters reliability/robustness of the cluster, but it seems to > do > the opposite when using pacemaker-remote. :( > Remote node is still node. It does not participate in quorum and it does not perform fencing but otherwise it is part of cluster. If you have redundant rings you are expected to provide redundant connection to remote nodes as well to match it. You do not complain that srv-2 is fenced when its single connection is down; how does it differ from srv-4 being fenced when its single connection is down? > Any suggestions/comments on our configuration / test scenario's are > appreciated! Every HA configuration is as reliable as its weakest link. If you make half of connections redundant and half of connections not, not redundant connections will be single point of failure. Besides, you never actually described what is the problem you are trying to solve. If you had no active resources on remote node, how does it matter whether this node was fenced? If you had active resources, those resources would have failed over to another node. _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/