[Pacemaker] no-quorum-policy = demote?

[Alexandre]

Have you tried to patch the monitor action of your RA, so that it set the a
temporary constraint location on the node to avoid it becoming master.
Something like
Location loc_splited_cluster -inf: MsRsc:Master  $node

Not sure about the above crm syntax, but that's the idea.
 Le 8 avr. 2014 02:52, "Andrew Beekhof" <andrew at beekhof.net> a écrit :

>
> On 7 Apr 2014, at 5:54 pm, Christian Ciach <dereineda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am using Corosync 2.0 with Pacemaker 1.1 on Ubuntu Server 14.04 (daily
> builds until final release).
> >
> > My problem is as follows: I have a 2-node (plus a quorum-node) cluster
> to manage a multistate-resource. One node should be the master and the
> other one the slave. It is absolutely not allowed to have two masters at
> the same time. To prevent a split-brain situation, I am also using a third
> node as a quorum-only node (set to standby). There is no redundant
> connection because the nodes are connected over the internet.
> >
> > If one of the two nodes managing the resource becomes disconnected, it
> loses quorum. In this case, I want this resource to become a slave, but the
> resource should never be stopped completely!
>
> Ever? Including when you stop pacemaker?  If so, maybe the path of least
> resistance is to delete the contents of the stop action in that OCF agent...
>
> > This leaves me with a problem: "no-quorum-policy=stop" will stop the
> resource, while "no-quorum-policy=ignore" will keep this resource in a
> master-state. I already tried to demote the resource manually inside the
> monitor-action of the OCF-agent, but pacemaker will promote the resource
> immediately again.
> >
> > I am aware that I am trying the manage a multi-site-cluster and there is
> something like the booth-daemon, which sounds like the solution to my
> problem. But unfortunately I need the location-constraints of pacemaker
> based on the score of the OCF-agent. As far as I know location-constraints
> are not possible when using booth, because the 2-node-cluster is
> essentially split into two 1-node-clusters. Is this correct?
> >
> > To conclude: Is it possible to demote a resource on quorum loss instead
> of stopping it? Is booth an option if I need to manage the location of the
> master based on the score returned by the OCF-agent?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20140408/6a6ee563/attachment-0003.html>