[Linux-cluster] How to disable node?
Rick Stevens
ricks at nerd.com
Mon Aug 31 21:35:22 UTC 2009
Rick Stevens wrote:
> Jakov Sosic wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:30:13 -0500
>> Alan A <alan.zg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You have to give your cluster 2 node setting on remaining two nodes.
>>>
>>> How can I define a two-node cluster if a majority is needed to reach
>>> quorum?
>>>
>>> We had to allow two-node clusters, so we made a special exception to
>>> the quorum rules. There is a special setting "two_node" in
>>> the /etc/cluster.conf file that looks like this:
>>>
>>> <cman expected_votes="1" two_node="1"/>
>>>
>>> This will allow one node to be considered enough to establish a
>>> quorum. Note that if you configure a quorum disk/partition, you don't
>>> want two_node="1".
>>>
>>> http://sources.redhat.com/cluster/wiki/FAQ/CMAN#two_node
>>
>> Yeah I know how to set up two_node cluster, but didn't know that
>> reconfiguration is the only way out when one node is missing :( I'm
>> disappointed with this limitation, I hope that developers will sort it
>> out for RHEL6 :(
>
> I don't see that there's anything to fix. You had a three-node cluster
> so you needed a majority of nodes up to maintain a quorum. One node
> died, killing quorum and thus stopping the cluster (the expected and
> correct behavior). As a three-node cluster, it's dead. It can't be run
> as a three-node cluster until the third node is fixed. Those are the
> rules.
>
> A two node cluster requires special handling of things to prevent the
> dread split-brain situation, which is what two_node does. Running the
> surviving nodes as a two-node cluster is, by definition, a
> reconfiguration. I'd say simply requiring you to set two_node is pretty
> damned innocuous to let you run a dead (ok, mortally wounded) cluster.
>
> If you pulled a drive out of a RAID6--thus degrading it to a RAID5--
> would you complain because it didn't remain a RAID6?
On re-reading my response, it seemed unintentionally harsh. I didn't
mean any disrespect, sir. I was simply questioning the concept that a
reconfiguration of a cluster shouldn't be required when, indeed the
cluster was being reconfigured. The other response I saw to this
thread regarding planning, and things such as last-man-standing was much
better worded.
My apologies if it seemed I was jumping down your throat. I wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks at nerd.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- Is that a buffer overflow or are you just happy to see me? -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Linux-cluster
mailing list