On Fri, 2024-09-13 at 17:32 +0200, Antony Stone wrote: > On Friday 13 September 2024 at 17:23:59, Taylor, Marc D wrote: > > > We bought a storage system from Dell and they recommended to us > > that we > > should use a two-node cluster > > I do hope you realise that a literal two-node cluster is not a good > idea? > > If the two nodes lose contact with each other, you get a situation > called > "split brain" where neither node can know what state the other node > is in, and > neither node can safely take over resources.
As long as fencing is configured (and tested!), a two-node cluster is not a problem. If the nodes lose communication, one side will fence the other and take over all resources. (Various fencing options are available to avoid a "death match" where both nodes fence each other.) > > You should always have an odd number of nodes in a cluster, and > provided more > than 50% of the nodes can see each other, they will run resources; > any node > which cannot see enough other nodes to be in a group of more than 50% > will > stop running resources. > > > to share the storage out as either NFS or SMB. > > Do they explicitly say you can do both? > > It might be possible to share a single storage resource using both > NFS and > SMB, but it must have some interesting file-locking capabilities. > > > Antony > -- Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
