On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 10:21 +0100, Christoph Herrmann wrote:
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Andrew Beekhof
> Gesendet: Di 11.01.2011 09:01
> An: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager ;
> CC: Michael Schwartzkopff ;
> Betreff: Re: [Pacemaker] Split-site cluste
-Original message-
To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager ;
From: Christoph Herrmann
Sent: Tue 11-01-2011 10:24
Subject:Re: [Pacemaker] Split-site cluster in two locations
> As long as you have only two computing centers it doesn't matter if you run a
&g
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Andrew Beekhof
Gesendet: Di 11.01.2011 09:01
An: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager ;
CC: Michael Schwartzkopff ;
Betreff: Re: [Pacemaker] Split-site cluster in two locations
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28 Dec 2010, at 20:32, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have four nodes in a split site scenario located in two computing centers.
>> STONITH is enabled.
>>
>> Is there and best practise how to deal with this setup
Hi,
On 28 Dec 2010, at 20:32, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have four nodes in a split site scenario located in two computing centers.
> STONITH is enabled.
>
> Is there and best practise how to deal with this setup? Does it make sense to
> set expected-quorum-votes to "3" to make t
Hi,
I have four nodes in a split site scenario located in two computing centers.
STONITH is enabled.
Is there and best practise how to deal with this setup? Does it make sense to
set expected-quorum-votes to "3" to make the whole setup still running with
one data center online? Is this possibl
