Re: AW: startup of resource groups with one node down
Padmanabhan Sreenivasan <[email protected]> Tue, 07 May 2002 12:07:43 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.failsafe |
|---|---|
| Organization | SGI |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Martin Bene wrote: > > Von: Padmanabhan Sreenivasan [mailto:[email protected]], 07. Mai 2002 01:20 > > > FailSafe notion of tie-breaker is different. Tiebreaker node > > gets the first chance to reset other node in a two node cluster > > in case of network partition. > > If only one node in the cluster is operational, start HA services only on that > > node. When the other node is available, you can start HA services on that node. It > > should rejoin the cluster. > > Thanks for that hint. I didn't realize the results of starting ha services for the cluster or starting it for just one node are quite different if only one node is available at startup: > > start ha services for cluster: > * membership only comes up if tiebreaker node is available, this is not true. membership can form even if the tiebreaker node is not available. In a 2 node cluster with network partition, if the tiebreaker node is not able to reset the non-tiebreaker node and non-tiebreaker node can successfully reset the tiebreaker node, a membership of one node (non-tiebreaker node) can be formed. > > * unavailable node gets reset > * node status is 1x UP, 1x DOWN > * bringing up resource groups fails. > > start up ha services just for the available node: > * membership comes up regardles of tiebreaker node > * unavailable node doesn't get reset > * node status is 1x UP, 1x inactive > * bringing up resource groups works. > > I feel much better now that I have known-to-work recipiece for bringing up services even from "both-nodes-down, one node kaputt" status. > > That said, I still don't understand where the first case differs from starting up with both nodes present and then loosing one :-) The key difference is in the second case, you are making an assumption that there are no HA resources running on the node (which is hopefully down). Paddy > > > Thanks again, Martin > _______________________________________________ > LinuxFailSafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/linuxfailsafe