Thank you for the explanation. I got the point.
But just to be sure, and maybe someone will find this info helpful, wanna
clarify this two options behavior.
>From the http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/saucy/man5/votequorum.5.html
about last_man_standing option:
NOTES: In order for the clu
On 12/06/14 00:51, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
Chrissy? Can you shed some light here?
On 11 Jun 2014, at 11:26 pm, Kostiantyn Ponomarenko
wrote:
Hi guys,
I am trying to deal somehow with split brain situation in 2 node cluster using
votequorum.
Here is a quorum section in my corosync.conf:
pro
Chrissy? Can you shed some light here?
On 11 Jun 2014, at 11:26 pm, Kostiantyn Ponomarenko
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I am trying to deal somehow with split brain situation in 2 node cluster
> using votequorum.
> Here is a quorum section in my corosync.conf:
>
> provider: corosync_votequorum
> e
On 06/11/14 16:35, Kostiantyn Ponomarenko wrote:
> And that is like roulette, in case we lose the lowest nodeid we lose all.
> So I can lose only the node which doesn't have the lowest nodeid?
> And it's not useful in 2 node cluster.
> Am i correct?
It may be usefull. If you define roles of the no
two_node option is my another question. I think it's not for this thread.
> last_man_standing: 1
> auto_tie_breaker: 1
So, anyway the only node will remain working in split brain (or one node
shout down) situation is that with the lowest id.
And that is like roulette, in case we lose the lowest n
11.06.2014 16:26, Kostiantyn Ponomarenko wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I am trying to deal somehow with split brain situation in 2 node cluster
> using votequorum.
> Here is a quorum section in my corosync.conf:
>
> provider: corosync_votequorum
> expected_votes: 2
Just a side note, not an answer to you
