On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Florian Haas <florian.h...@linbit.com> wrote: > > the current approach is to utilize 2 Pacemaker clusters, each highly > available in its own right, and employing manual failover. As described > here:
Thanks for the pointer! Perhaps "site" is not quite the correct term for our setup, where we still have (multiple) Gbit-or-faster ethernet links, think fire areas, at most in adjacent buildings. For the next step up, two geographically different sites, I agree that manual failover is more appropriate, but we feel that our case of the fire areas should still be handled automatically…(?) Can anybody judge how difficult it would be to integrate some kind of quorum-support into the cluster? (All cluster nodes attempt a quorum reservation; the node that gets it, has 1.5 or 2 votes towards the quorum, rather than just one; this would ensure continued operation in the case of a) a fire area losing power, b) the separate quorum-server failing, or c) the cross-fire-area cluster-interconnects failing (but not more than one failure at a time)…) Regards, Colin _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
