[Pacemaker] How to make a redundant structure of arbitrator?

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com> wrote:
> On 03/27/12 10:33, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Jiaju Zhang <jjzhang at suse.de> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 11:50 +0900, Yuichi Seino wrote:
>>>> Hi Jiaju,
>>>>
>>>> I have a question about booth.
>>>> I would like to know if a redundant structure of arbitrator is possible.
>>>> If it is possible, Please tell me how to the approach.
>>>
>>> If I understand the question correctly, you mean that the arbitrator
>>> should be redundant in case it might be down. Well, this can be resolved
>>> by adding more arbitrators, for example, you have 2 sites, and configure
>>> 3 arbitrators.
>>
>> The arbitrator is already redundant isn't it?
>> Because you need a cluster node to fail before an arbitrator failure
>> has any ill-effect.
> I think the term "arbitrator" that Jiaju referred to is the booth daemon
> running on a single machine, which is added to make sure the amount of
> booth daemons are uneven number.

Right, but making it redundant is only useful if it and one of the
real sites is already down.
If you've lost two sites (real + tie-breaker), you already have bigger
issues than validating the sites are really gone and manually granting
a ticket.

>
> Regards,
>  Gao,Yan
> --
> Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com>
> Software Engineer
> China Server Team, SUSE.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org