[Pacemaker] How to make a redundant structure of arbitrator?

Gao,Yan ygao at suse.com
Tue Mar 27 02:29:49 EDT 2012

On 03/27/12 13:56, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com> wrote:
>> On 03/27/12 10:33, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Jiaju Zhang <jjzhang at suse.de> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 11:50 +0900, Yuichi Seino wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jiaju,
>>>>> I have a question about booth.
>>>>> I would like to know if a redundant structure of arbitrator is possible.
>>>>> If it is possible, Please tell me how to the approach.
>>>> If I understand the question correctly, you mean that the arbitrator
>>>> should be redundant in case it might be down. Well, this can be resolved
>>>> by adding more arbitrators, for example, you have 2 sites, and configure
>>>> 3 arbitrators.
>>> The arbitrator is already redundant isn't it?
>>> Because you need a cluster node to fail before an arbitrator failure
>>> has any ill-effect.
>> I think the term "arbitrator" that Jiaju referred to is the booth daemon
>> running on a single machine, which is added to make sure the amount of
>> booth daemons are uneven number.
> Right, but making it redundant is only useful if it and one of the
> real sites is already down.
Right. From this aspect, it's already redundant.

> If you've lost two sites (real + tie-breaker), you already have bigger
> issues than validating the sites are really gone and manually granting
> a ticket.
Makes sense.

Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com>
Software Engineer
China Server Team, SUSE.

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list