[Info-vax] Wide area cluster, metro area network, seeking info

[Phillip Helbig undress to reply]

In article <sa6ge0$sra$1 at dont-email.me>, Mark Berryman
<mark at theberrymans.com> writes: 

> On 6/12/21 1:01 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> > In article <sa11hi$cpc$1 at dont-email.me>, Mark Berryman
> > <mark at theberrymans.com> writes:
> > 
> >> First, I recommend you ignore the suggestions to add a 3rd node to your
> >> cluster.  In your situation, it is not really a viable answer.
> > 
> > It would solve most of the problems you mention below, and also could
> > serve as a test node.
> > 
> >> There are configurations that will allow a member of a 2-node cluster to
> >> automatically continue in the event that the other node fails.
> > 
> > How?  If one has more votes, it is essential.  If the votes are the
> > same, both are essential.  Unless you mean a quorum disk.  But it should
> > be at a third location.
> > 
> 
> Situation: two separate nodes with no shared storage
> 
> Configure each node with one vote.  Configure each node to use a local 
> disk as the quorum disk, also with one vote.
> 
> As the cluster is formed, the nodes will discover that they do not agree 
> on the quorum disk and will exclude it, resulting in quorum being 
> established with the 2 votes provided by the nodes.
> 
> One node goes down, the other pauses while it recomputes quorum.  In 
> doing so it discovers there is no longer a conflict regarding the quorum 
> disk so it includes it, resulting in two votes which re-achieves quorum 
> and the node continues.
> 
> When the failed node comes back up, the quorum disks will be excluded 
> again and the cluster will return to its original state.  The danger of 
> this configuration is that, if the communication channel between the two 
> nodes is lost but the nodes remain up, the cluster will partition.  This 
> is addressed in my original posting.

Is this scenario supported?