[ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Re: Booth ticket multi‑site and quorum /Pacemaker
Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de
Fri Feb 25 03:10:21 EST 2022
>>> Viet Nguyen <vietnguyen1254 at gmail.com> schrieb am 24.02.2022 um 10:28 in
<CAFfxtUa2_=miVh-qaVAkYHPpmgF8zLHGh9-uYOkf9kVNZdeZ=g at mail.gmail.com>:
> Thank you so so much for your help. May i ask a following up question:
> For the option of having one big cluster with 4 nodes without booth, then,
> if one site (having 2 nodes) is down, then the other site does not work as
> it does not have quorum, am I right? Even if we have a quorum voter in
> either site A or B, then, if the site with quorum down, then, the other
> site does not work. So, how can we avoid this situation as I want
> that if one site is down, the other site still services?
Obviously you need a third location (or other tie-breaker).
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 17:08, Jan Friesse <jfriesse at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 22:37, Viet Nguyen wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > Could you please help me out with this question?
>> > I have 4 nodes cluster running in the same network but in 2 different
>> > (building A - 2 nodes and building B - 2 nodes). My objective is to
>> > setup HA for this cluster with pacemaker. The expectation is if a site is
>> > down, the other site still services.
>> > From what I could understand so far, in order to make it work, it needs
>> > have booth ticket manager installed in a different location, let's say
>> > building C which connects to both sites A and B.
>> > With this assumption, i would like to ask few questions:
>> > 1. Am i right that I need to setup the booth ticket manager as a
>> > voter as well?
>> Yes, booth (arbitrator) has to be installed on "site" C if you want to
>> use booth. Just keep in mind booth has nothing to do with quorum.
>> > 2. What happens if the connection between site A and B is down, but
>> > connection between A and C, B and C still up? In this case, both
>> site A and
>> > B still have the quorum as it can connect to C, but not between each
>> If you use booth then it's not required site A to see site B. It's then
>> "site" C problem to decide which site gets ticket.
>> > 3. Or is there any better way to manage 2 sites cluster, each has 2
>> > nodes? And if one site is down like environmental disaster, then,
>> the other
>> > site still services.
>> Basically there are (at least) two possible solutions:
>> - Have one big cluster without booth and use pcmk constraints
>> - Have two 2 node clusters and use booth. Then each of the two node
>> clusters is "independent" (have its own quorum) and each of the cluster
>> runs booth (site) as a cluster resource + "site" C running booth
>> > Thank you so much for your help!
>> > Regards,
>> > Viet
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Manage your subscription:
>> > https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>> > ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
More information about the Users