On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: > 03.10.2011 10:56, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov<bub...@hoster-ok.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> 03.10.2011 04:41, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If pacemaker fully finish processing of one membership change - elect >>>>>>> new DC on a quorate partition, and do not try to take over dc role >>>>>>> (or >>>>>>> release it) on a non-quorate partition if quorate one exists, that >>>>>>> problem could be gone. >>>>>> >>>>>> Non quorate partitions still have a DC. >>>>>> They're just not supposed to do anything (depending on the value of >>>>>> no-quorum-policy). >>>>> >>>>> I actually meant "do not try to take over dc role in a rejoined cluster >>>>> (or release that role) if it was running on a non-quorate partition >>>>> before rejoin if quorate one existed". >>>> >>>> All existing DC's give up the role and a new one is elected when two >>>> partitions join. >>>> So I'm unsure what you're referring to here :-) >>>> >>>>> Sorry for confusion. Not very >>>>> natural wording again, but should be better. >>>>> >>>>> May be DC from non-quorate partition should just have lower priority to >>>>> become DC when cluster rejoins and new election happen (does it?)? >>>> >>>> There is no bias towards past DCs in the election. >>> >>> From what I understand, election result highly depends on nodes >>> (pacemaker processes) uptime. And DC.old has a great chance to win an >>> election, just because it won it before, and nothing changed in election >>> parameters after that. Please fix me. >> >> Correct. But its not getting an advantage because it was DC. > > But it could have it because it f.e. has greater uptime (and that actually > was a reason it won previous elections, before split-brain). > And then it can drop all cib modifications which happened in a quorate > partition during split-brain. At least some messages in logs (you should > have them) make me think so. If it is possible to avoid this - it would be > great. So, from my PoV, one of two should happen > * DC.old does not win > * DC old wins and replaces its CIB with copy from DC.new > > Am I wrong here?
The CIB which is used depends not on which node was DC but which node had CIB.latest. > > Vladislav > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: > http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker > _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
