ctl_isc_lun_sync: Received conflicting HA LUN

[Mikhail Zakharov]

Hi Karli,

Thank you, I’m just exploring the storage abilities of my preferred OS - FreeBSD. 

Three nodes are preferable to choose the quorum for sure, but my idea was not to establish contacts between nodes. Instead of it, BQ uses a small partition for the “quorum” on the same space where data volume is located. And if a node looses access to the quorum it means, it looses access to the data volume too. Now, BQ runs on both nodes and both BQ instances write stamps to the quorum partition. If for any reason BQ on one node detects, the other node stops updating it’s stamps, it performs failover procedure. It’s quite a questionable, rude way, I can agree, and that’s why I always write a warning to use the BeaST for testing only purposes. 

Best regards,
Mike

> 24 апр. 2018 г., в 9:09, Karli Sjöberg <karli at inparadise.se> написал(а):
> 
>> On Mon, 2018-04-23 at 13:11 -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2018 12:59 PM, Mikhail Zakharov wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Mike,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your interest to my paper. I appreciate it very much!
>>> Your error may be a consequence of the initial HA misconfiguration.
>>> What is in your /boot/loader.conf? Although the described config is
>>> quite simple, I can recheck the instruction in my paper in a couple
>>> of weeks only, unfortunately I’m on vacation right now.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I read your articles on CTL HA, BQ and BeaST, and just wanted to say
> they are amazing, good job!
> 
> One thing I´m wondering about though is if you can claim HA with just
> two nodes, usually you need at least three, where the third is a tie-
> breaker. Otherwise with your current setup, both systems may loose
> contact with each other while both still being powered on, leading to
> potential split brain situations. What are your thoughts about that?
> 
> /K