- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - OpenVMS
- >
- quorum disk question
Operating System - OpenVMS
1822894
Members
3661
Online
109645
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
юдл
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Go to solution
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-15-2008 08:40 AM
тАО10-15-2008 08:40 AM
Does the defining of a quorum disk have any bearing on a cluster of two nodes?
I'm testing for a san change, and the two test boxes seem to have no problem with a quorum disk that doesn't exist.
Solved! Go to Solution.
3 REPLIES 3
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-15-2008 09:09 AM
тАО10-15-2008 09:09 AM
Solution
In a healthy cluster, it really doesn't matter that much. It becomes an issue if one of the nodes is down for maintenance and the quorum wasn't correctly defined. AND the SCS link between the two becomes disabled somehow.
For my two-node cluster, I have defined the system disk as the quorum disk. That became legal sometime in v 7.x of OpenVMS. As long as both nodes are up, you can form a quorum with two (active CPU) votes. But if one is down for maintenance, without a quorum disk it would be at least theoretically possible to "split" the cluster (a.k.a. partitioned cluster) such that cross-cluster locking would be impaired.
I think there has to be a failure of the SCS link, whatever it is. But I tried to fool around with this once. If you have a valid quorum disk and the connection between the nodes isn't right, the SECOND node to attempt to join your cluster cannot get to the quorum disk because the controller in that case just keeps it locked onto the first cluster member. Not sure I fully understand quite HOW it knows to do that, but it seems to do it based on my experiments.
In such a circumstance there is a possibility of destructive interference occurring because intra-cluster locking will not be honored. This is dangerous.
For my two-node cluster, I have defined the system disk as the quorum disk. That became legal sometime in v 7.x of OpenVMS. As long as both nodes are up, you can form a quorum with two (active CPU) votes. But if one is down for maintenance, without a quorum disk it would be at least theoretically possible to "split" the cluster (a.k.a. partitioned cluster) such that cross-cluster locking would be impaired.
I think there has to be a failure of the SCS link, whatever it is. But I tried to fool around with this once. If you have a valid quorum disk and the connection between the nodes isn't right, the SECOND node to attempt to join your cluster cannot get to the quorum disk because the controller in that case just keeps it locked onto the first cluster member. Not sure I fully understand quite HOW it knows to do that, but it seems to do it based on my experiments.
In such a circumstance there is a possibility of destructive interference occurring because intra-cluster locking will not be honored. This is dangerous.
Sr. Systems Janitor
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-15-2008 09:12 AM
тАО10-15-2008 09:12 AM
Re: quorum disk question
If you're asking this question, I'd encourage reading the following introduction to the quorum scheme and to the VOTES and EXPECTED_VOTES and related clustering knobs:
http://64.223.189.234/node/153
Short answer: If each node has one vote here (as is typical), you'll need a quorum disk (or a third voting node) to keep the cluster running when one of the two nodes is shut down. Here's the two-node write up:
http://64.223.189.234/node/569
I would discourage "creative" settings of VOTES and EXPECTED_VOTES; the disk data corruptions that can arise are generally irreparable if (when?) those "creative" settings go awry -- short of rolling in your BACKUPs, that is.
http://64.223.189.234/node/153
Short answer: If each node has one vote here (as is typical), you'll need a quorum disk (or a third voting node) to keep the cluster running when one of the two nodes is shut down. Here's the two-node write up:
http://64.223.189.234/node/569
I would discourage "creative" settings of VOTES and EXPECTED_VOTES; the disk data corruptions that can arise are generally irreparable if (when?) those "creative" settings go awry -- short of rolling in your BACKUPs, that is.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-15-2008 09:41 AM
тАО10-15-2008 09:41 AM
Re: quorum disk question
Gregg,
Concur. In a two node cluster, with symmetric VOTES, it is easy to end up with a cluster hang.
The quorum di9k is the obvious solution to that.
As Hoff said, care is needed.
- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com
Concur. In a two node cluster, with symmetric VOTES, it is easy to end up with a cluster hang.
The quorum di9k is the obvious solution to that.
As Hoff said, care is needed.
- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Learn About
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP