[Pacemaker] Split Site 2-way clusters

[Colin]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Florian Haas <florian.haas at linbit.com> wrote:
>
> the current approach is to utilize 2 Pacemaker clusters, each highly
> available in its own right, and employing manual failover. As described
> here:

Thanks for the pointer! Perhaps "site" is not quite the correct term
for our setup, where we still have (multiple) Gbit-or-faster ethernet
links, think fire areas, at most in adjacent buildings.

For the next step up, two geographically different sites, I agree that
manual failover is more appropriate, but we feel that our case of the
fire areas should still be handled automatically…(?)

Can anybody judge how difficult it would be to integrate some kind of
quorum-support into the cluster? (All cluster nodes attempt a quorum
reservation; the node that gets it, has 1.5 or 2 votes towards the
quorum, rather than just one; this would ensure continued operation in
the case of a) a fire area losing power, b) the separate quorum-server
failing, or c) the cross-fire-area cluster-interconnects failing (but
not more than one failure at a time)…)

Regards, Colin