[ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Re: Two node cluster without fencing and no split brain?
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
jgdr at dalibo.com
Thu Jul 22 09:53:25 EDT 2021
On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 15:36:03 +0200
"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> >>> Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr at dalibo.com> schrieb am 22.07.2021 um
> 12:05 in
> Nachricht <20210722120537.0d65c2a1 at firost>:
> > On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:02:21 -0400
> > "Frank D. Engel, Jr." <fde101 at fjrhome.net> wrote:
> >> In OpenVMS, the kernel is aware of the cluster. As is mentioned in that
> >> presentation, it actually stops processes from running and blocks access
> >> to clustered storage when quorum is lost, and resumes them appropriately
> >> once it is re-established.
> >> In other words... no reboot, no "death" of the cluster node or special
> >> arrangements with storage hardware... If connectivity is restored, the
> >> services are simply resumed.
> > Well, when losing the quorum, by default Pacemaker stop its local
> But when a node without quorum performs any actions it may corrupt data (e.g.
> writing to a non-shared filesystem like ext3 on a shared medium like iSCSI or
In the case you are describing, the storage itself should forbid the situation
where a non shared filesystem could be mounted in multiple server in the same
If you can't do this on the storage side, the simplest way to do it is using the
lvm systemid restriction (lvmsystemid(7)). This restriction strictly allows 0 or
1 node to access the shared VG. The name of the node allowed to activate the VG
is written on storage side. LVM will fails on any other node trying to activate
the shared VG. There's a pacemaker agent taking care of this.
I did some PoC using this, this is really easy to manage.
But I suspect OP is talking about a distributed clustered FS anyway, so this is
a completely different beast I never dealt with...
More information about the Users