[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: 2-Node Cluster Pointless?

Andrei Borzenkov arvidjaar at gmail.com
Mon Apr 24 23:47:11 EDT 2017

24.04.2017 09:15, Ulrich Windl пишет:
>>>> Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar at gmail.com> schrieb am 22.04.2017 um 09:05 in
> Nachricht <ede2cdd3-7020-9f59-90ad-c3b4a0c9eba7 at gmail.com>:
>> 18.04.2017 10:47, Ulrich Windl пишет:
>> ...
>>>> Now let me come back to quorum vs. stonith;
>>>> Said simply; Quorum is a tool for when everything is working. Fencing is
>>>> a tool for when things go wrong.
>>> I'd say: Quorum is the tool to decide who'll be alive and who's going to 
>> die,
>>> and STONITH is the tool to make nodes die.
>> If I had PROD, QA and DEV in a cluster and PROD were separated from
>> QA+DEV I'd be very sad if PROD were shut down.
>> The notion of simple node majority as kill policy is not appropriate as
>> well as simple node based delays. I wish pacemaker supported scoring
>> system for resources so that we could base stonith delays on them (the
>> most important sub-cluster starts fencing first).
> So your preference for a 2|1 node split brain scenario is to make the one node
> survive if it runs the more important resources?

Correct. Except I'm accustomed to call it "application" which is
collection of resources.

More information about the Users mailing list