On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>> I realize this may be a pipe dream.
>
> Someone here at the office suggested that we use more machines in our
> cluster to ensure we always have a quorum, but put -inf location
> constraints on those nodes to make sure the resources only live
>> I realize this may be a pipe dream.
Someone here at the office suggested that we use more machines in our
cluster to ensure we always have a quorum, but put -inf location
constraints on those nodes to make sure the resources only live on the
load balancer nodes.
Is there any obvious flaw to th
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>> Try no-quorum-policy=freeze instead.
>
> I considered this option, but that puts us into a situation where if
> node X and Y fail, then resources from them won't be started up on Z.
> I would like to (if possible) avoid that -- I want one node
> Try no-quorum-policy=freeze instead.
I considered this option, but that puts us into a situation where if
node X and Y fail, then resources from them won't be started up on Z.
I would like to (if possible) avoid that -- I want one node to be able
to take on everything.
I realize this may be a p
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here at Bump we currently have our handset traffic routed through a
> single server. For obvious reasons, we want to expand this to
> multiple nodes for redundancy. The load balancer is doing two tasks:
> TLS termination and then d
Hi all,
Here at Bump we currently have our handset traffic routed through a
single server. For obvious reasons, we want to expand this to
multiple nodes for redundancy. The load balancer is doing two tasks:
TLS termination and then directing traffic to one of our internal
application servers.
W
