[ClusterLabs Developers] [ClusterLabs] [Linux-ha-dev] Announcing crmsh release 2.1.7
konstantin.ponomarenko at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 02:19:16 EDT 2016
>> If "scripts: no-quorum-policy=ignore" is becoming depreciated
Are there any plans to get rid of this option?
Am I missing something?
PS: this option is very useful (vital) to me. And "two_node" option won't
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Darren Thompson <darrent at akurit.com.au>
> Thank you.
> Comprehensively answered.
> On 1 Sep 2016 6:27 PM, "Kristoffer Grönlund" <kgronlund at suse.com> wrote:
>> Darren Thompson <darrent at akurit.com.au> writes:
>> > Just a quick question:
>> > If "scripts: no-quorum-policy=ignore" is becoming depreciated, how are
>> > to manage two node (e.g. test) clusters that require this work around
>> > quorum state on a single node is an odd state.
>> Hi Darren,
>> There are better mechanisms in corosync and Pacemaker for handling two
>> node clusters now while still maintaining quorum.
>> In corosync 2, we have the two_node: 1 setting for votequorum, which
>> ensures that a two node cluster doesn't suffer split brain (fencing is
>> required for this to work properly).
>> There is an explanation for how this works here:
>> Somewhat related, there used to be the start-delay meta parameter which
>> could be set for example for sbd stonith resources, to make a
>> double-fencing scenario less likely. This has now been replaced by the
>> pcmk_delay_max parameter. For an example of how to use this, see this
>> pull request for sbd:
>> // Kristoffer Grönlund
>> // kgronlund at suse.com
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Developers