[Linux-cluster] CLVM in a 3-node cluster

[emmanuel segura]

So my question is, do I have an error somehwere, or is clvm really actually
not able to function without all nodes being active and able to access
storage?

Clvm need to be in a quorate cluster for work & if you use clvm in one node
of the cluster i think the should has access to the storage


your using the 3node to provide the quorum?

esample: if one node of your two primary nodes goes down the it's still
quorute, but if two node goes down and you are no using a quorum disk, you
lose the quorum state

I  don't know why you use a node to privide the quorum, if you are use SAN
why not use a lun for use as quorum disk

All nodes in the cluster should has access to the storag

2012/7/2 urgrue <urgrue at bulbous.org>

> On 2/7/12 19:14, Digimer wrote:
>
>> On 07/02/2012 01:08 PM, urgrue wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to set up a 3-node cluster with clvm. Problem is, one node
>>> can't access the storage, and I'm getting:
>>> Error locking on node node3: Volume group for uuid not found: <snip>
>>> whenever I try to activate the LVs on one of the working nodes.
>>>
>>> This can't be "by design", can it?
>>>
>>
>> Does pvscan show the right device? Are all nodes in the cluster? What
>> does 'cman_tool status' and 'dlm_tool ls' show?
>>
>>
> Sorry, I realize now I was misleading, let me clarify:
> The third node cannot access the storage, this is by design. I have three
> datacenters but only two have access to the active storage. The third
> datacenter only has an async copy, and will only activate (manually) in
> case of a massive disaster (failure of both the other datacenters).
> So I deliberately have a failover domain with only node1 and node2.
> node3's function is to provide quorum, but also be able to be activated
> (manually is fine) in case of a massive disaster.
> In other words node3 is part of the cluster, but it can't see the storage
> during normal operation.
> Looking at it another way, it's kind of as if we had a 3-node cluster
> where one node had an HBA failure but is otherwise working. Surely node1
> and node2 should be able to continue running the services?
> So my question is, do I have an error somehwere, or is clvm really
> actually not able to function without all nodes being active and able to
> access storage?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/**mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster>
>



-- 
esta es mi vida e me la vivo hasta que dios quiera
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20120703/7f2d1b02/attachment.htm>