Hi Tom,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 05:28:28PM -0400, Tom Parker wrote:
> Some more reading of the source code makes me think the " || [
> "$__OCF_ACTION" != "stop" ]; "is not needed.
Yes, you're right. I'll drop that part of the if statement. Many
thanks for testing.
Cheers,
Dejan
> Xen_Status_with_Retry() is only called from Stop and Monitor so we only
> need to check if it's a probe. Everything else should be handled in the
> case statement in the loop.
>
> Tom
>
> On 10/16/2013 05:16 PM, Tom Parker wrote:
> > Hi. I think there is an issue with the Updated Xen RA.
> >
> > I think there is an issue with the if statement here but I am not sure.
> > I may be confused about how bash || works but I don't see my servers
> > ever entering the loop on a vm disappearing.
> >
> > if ocf_is_probe || [ "$__OCF_ACTION" != "stop" ]; then
> > return $rc
> > fi
> >
> > Does this not mean that if we run a monitor operation that is not a
> > probe we will have:
> >
> > (ocf_is_probe) return false
> > (stop != monitor) return true
> > (false || true) return true
> >
> > which will cause the if statement to return $rc and never enter the loop?
> >
> > Xen_Status_with_Retry() {
> > local rc cnt=5
> >
> > Xen_Status $1
> > rc=$?
> > if ocf_is_probe || [ "$__OCF_ACTION" != "stop" ]; then
> > return $rc
> > fi
> > while [ $rc -eq $OCF_NOT_RUNNING -a $cnt -gt 0 ]; do
> > case "$__OCF_ACTION" in
> > stop)
> > ocf_log debug "domain $1 reported as not running, waiting $cnt
> > seconds ..."
> > ;;
> > monitor)
> > ocf_log warn "domain $1 reported as not running, but it is
> > expected to be running! Retrying for $cnt seconds ..."
> > ;;
> > *) : not reachable
> > ;;
> > esac
> > sleep 1
> > Xen_Status $1
> > rc=$?
> > let cnt=$((cnt-1))
> > done
> > return $rc
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/16/2013 12:12 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:55:11PM -0400, Tom Parker wrote:
> >>> Hi Dejan
> >>>
> >>> Just a quick question. I cannot see your new log messages being logged
> >>> to syslog
> >>>
> >>> ocf_log warn "domain $1 reported as not running, but it is expected to
> >>> be running! Retrying for $cnt seconds ...
> >>>
> >>> Do you know where I can set my logging to see warn level messages? I
> >>> expected to see them in my testing by default but that does not seem to
> >>> be true.
> >> You should see them by default. But note that these warnings may
> >> not happen, depending on the circumstances on your host. In my
> >> experiments they were logged only while the guest was rebooting
> >> and then just once or maybe twice. If you have recent
> >> resource-agents and crmsh, you can enable operation tracing (with
> >> crm resource trace <rsc> monitor <interval>).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Dejan
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/08/2013 05:04 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:52:56PM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> >>>>> Hi!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thought, I'll never be bitten by this bug, but I actually was! Now I'm
> >>>>> wondering whether the Xen RA sees the guest if you use pygrub, and
> >>>>> pygrub is
> >>>>> still counting down for actual boot...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But the reason why I'm writing is that I think I've discovered another
> >>>>> bug in
> >>>>> the RA:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CRM decided to "recover" the guest VM "v02":
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> lrmd: [14903]: info: operation monitor[28] on prm_xen_v02 for client
> >>>>> 14906:
> >>>>> pid 19516 exited with return code 7
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> pengine: [14905]: notice: LogActions: Recover prm_xen_v02 (Started h05)
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> crmd: [14906]: info: te_rsc_command: Initiating action 5: stop
> >>>>> prm_xen_v02_stop_0 on h05 (local)
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Xen(prm_xen_v02)[19552]: INFO: Xen domain v02 already stopped.
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> lrmd: [14903]: info: operation stop[31] on prm_xen_v02 for client
> >>>>> 14906: pid
> >>>>> 19552 exited with return code 0
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> crmd: [14906]: info: te_rsc_command: Initiating action 78: start
> >>>>> prm_xen_v02_start_0 on h05 (local)
> >>>>> lrmd: [14903]: info: rsc:prm_xen_v02 start[32] (pid 19686)
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> lrmd: [14903]: info: RA output: (prm_xen_v02:start:stderr) Error:
> >>>>> Domain 'v02'
> >>>>> already exists with ID '3'
> >>>>> lrmd: [14903]: info: RA output: (prm_xen_v02:start:stdout) Using config
> >>>>> file
> >>>>> "/etc/xen/vm/v02".
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> lrmd: [14903]: info: operation start[32] on prm_xen_v02 for client
> >>>>> 14906: pid
> >>>>> 19686 exited with return code 1
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> crmd: [14906]: info: process_lrm_event: LRM operation
> >>>>> prm_xen_v02_start_0
> >>>>> (call=32, rc=1, cib-update=5271, confirmed=true) unknown error
> >>>>> crmd: [14906]: WARN: status_from_rc: Action 78 (prm_xen_v02_start_0) on
> >>>>> h05
> >>>>> failed (target: 0 vs. rc: 1): Error
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you can clearly see "start" failed, because the guest was found up
> >>>>> already!
> >>>>> IMHO this is a bug in the RA (SLES11 SP2:
> >>>>> resource-agents-3.9.4-0.26.84).
> >>>> Yes, I've seen that. It's basically the same issue, i.e. the
> >>>> domain being gone for a while and then reappearing.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I guess the following test is problematic:
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> xm create ${OCF_RESKEY_xmfile} name=$DOMAIN_NAME
> >>>>> rc=$?
> >>>>> if [ $rc -ne 0 ]; then
> >>>>> return $OCF_ERR_GENERIC
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Here "xm create" probably fails if the guest is already created...
> >>>> It should fail too. Note that this is a race, but the race is
> >>>> anyway caused by the strange behaviour of xen. With the recent
> >>>> fix (or workaround) in the RA, this shouldn't be happening.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Dejan
> >>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Ulrich
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> schrieb am 01.10.2013 um
> >>>>>>>> 12:24 in
> >>>>> Nachricht <20131001102430.GA4687@walrus.homenet>:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:13:02PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2013-10-01T00:53:15, Tom Parker <tpar...@cbnco.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for paying attention to this issue (not really a bug) as I am
> >>>>>>>> sure I am not the only one with this issue. For now I have set all
> >>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>> VMs to destroy so that the cluster is the only thing managing them
> >>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>> this is not super clean as I get failures in my logs that are not
> >>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>> failures.
> >>>>>>> It is very much a severe bug.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Xen RA has gained a workaround for this now, but we're also
> >>>>>>> pushing
> >>>>>> Take a look here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/resource-agents/pull/314
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dejan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the Xen team (where the real problem is) to investigate and fix.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Lars
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Architect Storage/HA
> >>>>>>> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix
> >>>>>>> Imendörffer,
> >>>>>> HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
> >>>>>>> "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar
> >>>>>>> Wilde
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Linux-HA mailing list
> >>>>>>> Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> >>>>>>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> >>>>>>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Linux-HA mailing list
> >>>>>> Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> >>>>>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> >>>>>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Linux-HA mailing list
> >>>>> Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> >>>>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> >>>>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Linux-HA mailing list
> >>>> Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> >>>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> >>>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Linux-HA mailing list
> >>> Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> >>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> >>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Linux-HA mailing list
> >> Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> >> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> >> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-HA mailing list
> > Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
