[Linux-cluster] network tiebreaker required for a two node cluster?

[Herta Van den Eynde]

Re: [Linux-cluster] Why Redhat replace quorum partition/lock lun	with 
new fencing mechanisms?

Kevin Anderson wrote:
> If you have access to shared storage, then a two node cluster with
> quorum disk/fencing would be a better configuration and could be the
> recommended configuration.  However, there are still cases where you
> could have a two node cluster with no shared storage.  Depends on how
> the application is sharing state or accessing data.  But for an
> active/passive two node failover cluster, I can see where the quorum
> disk will be very popular.
> 
> Kevin

When configuring the cluquorumd for a two node cluster (active-active 
nfs server), the GUI recommends using a network tiebreaker ip address. 
Why is that?

Under heavier network load, we occasionally see one of the members 
(usually the highest priority member) reporting that the connection to 
the tiebreaker is offline.  It subsequently gets fenced by the other 
node, and simply reboots.
(FWIIW, we checked the network cards, cables, and switch and 
swithc-ports between the two nodes.  The system that holds the TB 
address is currently waiting to be re-installed, so it's pretty much idle.)

I thought the network tiebreaker was meant to avoid a split-brain 
cluster, but if it isn't, needless to say, we'd be happy to get rid of it.

Kind regards,

Herta

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm