[DRBD-user] DRBD - one half of Proxmox cluster miscommunicating

James Gibbon james.gibbon at virgin.net
Tue Jul 31 17:19:13 CEST 2012

Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.


On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:04:02 +0200
Felix Frank <ff at mpexnet.de> wrote:

> I stand by this assessment. You got "lucky" insofar that both
> nodes were primary when they saw each other again. There is no
> autorecovery from that. If for some freak reason your "good"
> node would have been in a demoted state at such a time, the
> stale node would have killed its data.

Ah I see .. so because the "good" node is in a primary state at
the moment, it's not at risk when I bring up the interface on
the "bad" node. I only get bitten by that if the first node
running the VMs becomes secondary. And there's no reason to
suppose that will happen. Is that right?

> Please note: If you would have been even more "lucky", your bad
> node would have been secondary and your policy would have done
> the right thing. The question you have to ask yourself boils
> down to "how lucky do you feel in the long run?" ;)
> Again: It's paramount to be absolutely sure which dataset is
> discarded. The above setting makes the decision a fair bit more
> arbitrary.

Well - all of the VMs are running on the first node and everything
is fine and up to date on those. So I'm sure I need to discard the
second server's data and sync it up from the first.

Many thanks

James Gibbon <james.gibbon at virgin.net>

More information about the drbd-user mailing list