I think it’s challenging to fence the other node via network when the network is down.
Kind regards, Ulrich Windl From: Users <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Anton Gavriliuk via Users Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 6:45 PM To: Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed <[email protected]> Cc: Anton Gavriliuk <[email protected]> Subject: [EXT] [EXT] [ClusterLabs] DRBD diskless quorum vs DRBD "handlers" and "fencing" in two-node Pacemaker storage metro-cluster Hello There is two-node shared-nothing DRBD-based sync replication active/standby Pacemaker storage metro-cluster. DRBD replication links are directly (no switch) connected. Configuration with Corosync quorum and DRBD diskless quorum are running on additional qdevice host. Heuristics (parallel fping) and STONITH/fencing - fence_ipmilan and diskless sbd (hpwdt, /dev/watchdog). Data consistency and integrity is absolute priority during any node/network breaks. In such setup, should I add to DRBD resource files "handlers" and "fencing", handlers { fence-peer "/usr/lib/drbd/crm-fence-peer.9.sh"; unfence-peer "/usr/lib/drbd/crm-unfence-peer.9.sh"; } and fencing resource-and-stonith; or fencing resource-only Or is it unnecessary and may even be counterproductive ? Anton
_______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
