Still celebrating National IT Professionals Day with 3 months of free Premium Membership. Use Code ITDAY17

x
?
Solved

Cluster will not fail over when all paths to a disk fails on active node but not inactive node.

Posted on 2013-06-26
12
Medium Priority
?
545 Views
Last Modified: 2013-07-21
Hi all,

We are setting up a new Server 2008 R2 cluster with two nodes. Each node is presented two LUNs from our SAN, one for the Quorum drive and another for application data.

We were testing failover today and if we removed all paths to the application data LUN for ONLY the active node but not the inactive node, we expected the cluster to failover to the inactive node since it was still able to see the LUN. Instead, however, the cluster did not fail over to node 2 instead it stayed active on the first node but simply marked the application LUN as "failed" and would not failover to the inactive node.

Does anyone know if this is expected behavior and if not, how to fix?

Thanks
0
Comment
Question by:ktpoitm
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 5
  • 5
12 Comments
 
LVL 27

Accepted Solution

by:
Steve earned 1336 total points
ID: 39281523
clusters with only 2 nodes are a pain as you normally need a majority to make cluster decisions. as a majority is impossible with 2 nodes it just doesn't work properly.

have you set up an independent witness server to provide a 3rd 'vote' in the cluster?

Could you confirm what cluster config as shown in the link below you have so we can help appropriately?

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731739.aspx
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:ktpoitm
ID: 39281535
The quorum configuration is currently "node and disk majority" and we do not have any witness servers configured. This will be the first in 3 clusters would we need a separate witness server for all three clusters or can the witness server be witness to 3 separate clusters?
0
 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:Steve
Steve earned 1336 total points
ID: 39281751
as there are only 2 nodes you will need a witness of some form to cast the deciding vote in cluster events.

I believe witness servers can generally only function for one cluster but I've never tried so cannot be sure.
0
Fill in the form and get your FREE NFR key NOW!

Veeam® is happy to provide a FREE NFR server license to certified engineers, trainers, and bloggers.  It allows for the non‑production use of Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows. This license is valid for five workstations and two servers.

 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:ktpoitm
ID: 39281766
All the nodes for these clusters are physical blades, would there be any issues with each witness server being a VM?
Also, would the LUNs need to be presented to the witness servers as well?
0
 
LVL 18

Assisted Solution

by:Netflo
Netflo earned 664 total points
ID: 39283038
Just to add one vital question to make sure your cluster works correctly. When you created the cluster, did it pass validation? Or were the errors produced ignored?

Please see the following link for further reading: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc732035(v=ws.10).aspx
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:ktpoitm
ID: 39283819
Yes the cluster did pass validation.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:Steve
ID: 39300114
All the nodes for these clusters are physical blades, would there be any issues with each witness server being a VM?
Also, would the LUNs need to be presented to the witness servers as well?

Yes it would be an issue. the witness server(s) should be independent of the cluster and should not be affected if one or more nodes fail.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:ktpoitm
ID: 39320053
I've requested that this question be deleted for the following reason:

We decided to use a different method for the disks in the cluster.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:Steve
ID: 39320054
Although you may not have got the answer you wanted, a valid answer was provided and the question shouldn't be deleted.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:ktpoitm
ID: 39337843
I've requested that this question be closed as follows:

Accepted answer: 0 points for ktpoitm's comment #a39283819

for the following reason:

We are not going to use the witness server for cluster failover.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:Steve
ID: 39337844
Does anyone know if this is expected behavior and if not, how to fix?

Responses 39281523 & 39281751 identified the issue and offered the recommended solution. Although you chose not to follow the recommendations, it was still a valid solution to your query.
0

Featured Post

Concerto's Cloud Advisory Services

Want to avoid the missteps to gaining all the benefits of the cloud? Learn more about the different assessment options from our Cloud Advisory team.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

The recent Microsoft changes on update philosophy for Windows pre-10 and their impact on existing WSUS implementations.
This article provides a convenient collection of links to Microsoft provided Security Patches for operating systems that have reached their End of Life support cycle. Included operating systems covered by this article are Windows XP,  Windows Server…
This tutorial will show how to push an installation of Backup Exec to an additional server in both 2012 and 2014 versions of the software. Click on the Backup Exec button in the upper left corner. From here, select Installation and Licensing, then I…
There are cases when e.g. an IT administrator wants to have full access and view into selected mailboxes on Exchange server, directly from his own email account in Outlook or Outlook Web Access. This proves useful when for example administrator want…

662 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question