[Info-vax] Third node into 2-node cluster

[Phillip Helbig undress to reply]

In article <b6edffa8-7f13-4c69-a3f5-9d85566f49a6 at googlegroups.com>,
Richard B <richard.brock57 at gmail.com> writes: 

> Thanks all for the great advice.  However, I'm not sure I understand why I =
> would want to point any logicals to the existing 2-node cluster.  This thir=
> d node will be a voting/quorum member only.  That will be it's only functio=
> n.  No one, aside from me, will log into it, no one will use any of its res=
> ources, nada, nothing, zilch.  (It will, however, suck power!). It has it's=
>  own system disk, will have VOTES=3D1 set and any disks on the existing 2-n=
> ode cluster (MSCP-served) may well be mounted on this new node but not shad=
> owed with this 3rd node.  Or am I missing something?

If you have a third node anyway, why not make them equivalent?  Then you 
could lose any one node.  If the third node hosts no disks, then if 
those are shadowed between the other two nodes, if one is down, the 
shadow set has just one member.  If you have controller-based shadowing, 
then the disks are unavailable if the node is.  Unless you have an 
expensive setup where disks can be accessed by all nodes other than via 
MSCP.