<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt" ><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt" ><div dir="ltr" >Hey Andrei,<br> </div>
<div dir="ltr" >Thanks for your response again. The cluster nodes and remote hosts each share two networks, however there is no routing between them. I don't suppose there is a configuration parameter we can set to tell Pacemaker to try communicating with the remotes using multiple IP addresses?<br> </div>
<div dir="ltr" ><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt" ><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10.5pt" ><div dir="ltr" ><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold; font-family: sans-serif; color: #7C7C5F;" ><span style="font-size:10pt;" ><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" ><span style="color:#000000;" >Gerry Sommerville</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: sans-serif; margin-top: 10px;" ><div><span style="font-weight: bold; color: #336699;" >E-mail: </span><a href="mailto:gerry@ca.ibm.com" style="color: #555" target="_blank">gerry@ca.ibm.com</a></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<div dir="ltr" > </div>
<div dir="ltr" > </div>
<blockquote data-history-content-modified="1" dir="ltr" style="border-left:solid #aaaaaa 2px; margin-left:5px; padding-left:5px; direction:ltr; margin-right:0px" >----- Original message -----<br>From: "Andrei Borzenkov" <arvidjaar@gmail.com><br>Sent by: "Users" <users-bounces@clusterlabs.org><br>To: users@clusterlabs.org<br>Cc:<br>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Inquiry - remote node fencing issue<br>Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2021 2:59 PM<br>
<div><font size="2" face="Default Monospace,Courier New,Courier,monospace" >On 28.10.2021 20:13, Gerry R Sommerville wrote:<br>><br>> What we also found to be interesting is that if the cluster is only using a<br>> single heartbeat ring, then srv-2 will get fenced instead, and the<br><br>So as already suspected you did not actually isolate the node at all.<br><br>> pacemaker-remote connection resources will successfully fail over without any<br>> additional fencing to the remote nodes themselves. It seems a little backwards<br>> to us since our reasoning for configuring multiple heartbeat rings was to<br>> increase the clusters reliability/robustness of the cluster, but it seems to do<br>> the opposite when using pacemaker-remote. :(<br>><br><br>Remote node is still node. It does not participate in quorum and it does<br>not perform fencing but otherwise it is part of cluster. If you have<br>redundant rings you are expected to provide redundant connection to<br>remote nodes as well to match it.<br><br>You do not complain that srv-2 is fenced when its single connection is<br>down; how does it differ from srv-4 being fenced when its single<br>connection is down?<br><br>> Any suggestions/comments on our configuration / test scenario's are appreciated!<br><br>Every HA configuration is as reliable as its weakest link. If you make<br>half of connections redundant and half of connections not, not redundant<br>connections will be single point of failure.<br><br>Besides, you never actually described what is the problem you are trying<br>to solve. If you had no active resources on remote node, how does it<br>matter whether this node was fenced? If you had active resources, those<br>resources would have failed over to another node.<br>_______________________________________________<br>Manage your subscription:<br><a href="https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users" target="_blank">https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users</a> <br><br>ClusterLabs home: <a href="https://www.clusterlabs.org/" target="_blank">https://www.clusterlabs.org/</a> </font></div></blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" > </div></div></div><BR>
<BR>