[Pacemaker] pacemaker/dlm problems

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com> wrote:
> 03.10.2011 04:41, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> If pacemaker fully finish processing of one membership change - elect
>>>>> new DC on a quorate partition, and do not try to take over dc role (or
>>>>> release it) on a non-quorate partition if quorate one exists, that
>>>>> problem could be gone.
>>>>
>>>> Non quorate partitions still have a DC.
>>>> They're just not supposed to do anything (depending on the value of
>>>> no-quorum-policy).
>>>
>>> I actually meant "do not try to take over dc role in a rejoined cluster
>>> (or release that role) if it was running on a non-quorate partition
>>> before rejoin if quorate one existed".
>>
>> All existing DC's give up the role and a new one is elected when two
>> partitions join.
>> So I'm unsure what you're referring to here :-)
>>
>>> Sorry for confusion. Not very
>>> natural wording again, but should be better.
>>>
>>> May be DC from non-quorate partition should just have lower priority to
>>> become DC when cluster rejoins and new election happen (does it?)?
>>
>> There is no bias towards past DCs in the election.
>
> From what I understand, election result highly depends on nodes
> (pacemaker processes) uptime. And DC.old has a great chance to win an
> election, just because it won it before, and nothing changed in election
> parameters after that. Please fix me.

Correct.  But its not getting an advantage because it was DC.