[Pacemaker] no-quorum-policy = demote?

[Andrew Beekhof]

On 26 May 2014, at 10:47 pm, Christian Ciach <dereineda at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am sorry to get back to this topic, but I'm genuinely curious:
> 
> Why is "demote" an option for the ticket "loss-policy" for multi-site-clusters but not for the normal "no-quorum-policy" of local clusters? This seems like a missing feature to me.

Or one feature too many.
Perhaps Yan can explain why he wanted demote as an option for the loss-policy.

> 
> Best regards
> Christian
> 
> 
> 2014-04-07 9:54 GMT+02:00 Christian Ciach <dereineda at gmail.com>:
> 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! 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20140527/05f3b7f7/attachment-0003.sig>