[Pacemaker] Two node cluster and no hardware device for stonith.

Lars Ellenberg lars.ellenberg at linbit.com
Mon Feb 9 10:41:19 EST 2015

On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:15:44PM +0100, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 09:18:50AM +0100, Digimer wrote:
> > That is the problem that makes geo-clustering very hard to nearly
> > impossible. You can look at the Booth option for pacemaker, but that
> > requires two (or more) full clusters, plus an arbitrator 3rd
> A full cluster can consist of one node only. Hence, it is
> possible to have a kind of stretch two-node [multi-site] cluster
> based on tickets and managed by booth.

In theory.

In practice, we rely on "proper behaviour" of "the other site",
in case a ticket is revoked, or cannot be renewed.

Relying on a single node for "proper behaviour" does not inspire
as much confidence as relying on a multi-node HA-cluster at each site,
which we can expect to ensure internal fencing.

With reliable hardware watchdogs, it still should be ok to do
"stretched two node HA clusters" in a reliable way.

Be generous with timeouts.

And document which failure modes you expect to handle,
and how to deal with the worst-case scenarios if you end up with some
failure case that you are not equipped to handle properly.

There are deployments which favor
"rather online with _potential_ split brain" over
"rather offline just in case".

Document this, print it out on paper,

   "I am aware that this may lead to lost transactions,
   data divergence, data corruption, or data loss.
   I am personally willing to take the blame,
   and live with the consequences."

Have some "boss" sign that ^^^
in the real world using a real pen.


: Lars Ellenberg
: http://www.LINBIT.com | Your Way to High Availability
: DRBD, Linux-HA  and  Pacemaker support and consulting

DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria.

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list