Hi, On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:10:22AM +0100, Alain.Moulle wrote: > Hi, > > > > > And if we have a more than two-nodes cluster, it seems similar for me ... > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > No, because the partition without quorum can't fence nodes. That > > > > makes things simpler and more predictable. > > > > > > > > > ... what if no-quorum-policy=ignore ? > > > > > > Why would you want to set it to ignore if you have more than > > two nodes? > > > > > I have to set no-quorum-policy=ignore because on my four nodes HA > clusters, > I want failover happen with not at least one node in failure but even > with two > nodes in failure, because all the resources can continue to work with > decreased > performances on two nodes.
I see your point, but having quorum is of great advantage to clusters ;-) How probable is that two nodes simultaneously fail? Can you add another node in the cluster which would serve as a tie-breaker? > > OK fine, but I have some big customer's sites where I have hundreds of > > > HA pairs, > > > and on these sites, despite probability is near 0 , it has happened > > > several times, not many > > > but several. > > > > > > With which plugin? Did you file a bugzilla? Or was it with RHCS? > > > > > it was with RHCS, and I hope not to have this problem anymore with > Pacemaker/openais. The issue is in principle the same. I doubt that RHCS and pacemaker deal differently with it. Thanks, Dejan > Alain Moullé > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
