AW: startup of resource groups with one node down
"Martin Bene" <[email protected]> Mon, 6 May 2002 19:51:52 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.failsafe |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Lars Marowsky-Bree [mailto:[email protected]], 06. Mai 2002 19:09 > > My question is: do you have to bring up all nodes in the > > cluster just > > for FailSafe to continue operating normally? A person > > maintaining a > > cluster will have to know this... > > Yes. You need to bring up the majority of the cluster; at > least that is my > understanding. For a two-node cluster, that's what the tie-breaking node in the ha-parameters should be for; if only one node is available, it must be the tie-breaking node for a valid membership to be formed. I'd expect having to reset the tie-breaker parameter to be the available node in case I try to start up with just one node. Sadly, things still don't work out quite as expected: * If I start out with both nodes available and shut one node down: Node Status is 1xUP, 1xDOWN; resource groups fail over to the available node; rescource groups CAN be taken offline and set online again without problems. * If I start with just one node, which is the tiebreaker node: Node Status is 1x UP, 1xDOWN; resource startup is attempted but fails. resource groups end up in ERROR state, can be taken offline but can NOT be set online manually. manual startup fails: Node in failure domain is not in membership. FailSafe daemon (ha_fsd) failed to online resource group (db). or , with a bit more info from the logfiles: Mon May 6 19:33:23.166 <N resgroupAdmin config 1964:0 ci_config_cdb.c:208> resgroupAdmin _RESOURCE_GROUP=db _RESOURCE_GROUP_ACTION=online _CLUSTER=webc Mon May 6 19:33:53.592 <N resgroupAdmin config 1964:0 resgroupAdmin.c:853> Node in failure domain is not in membership Mon May 6 19:33:53.618 <E resgroupAdmin config 1964:0 ci_config_cdb.c:232> CI_FAILURE, CLI private command: failed (FailSafe daemon (ha_fsd) failed to online resource group (db).) Somehow, I can't imagine that that's expected/desired behaviour :-) Bye, Martin