Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: single node fails to start the ocfs2 resource

2018-03-14 Thread Klaus Wenninger 
On 03/14/2018 08:35 AM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
> >Somehow I miss corosync confiuration in this thread. Do you know
> >wait-for-all is set (how?) or you just assume it?
> >
> solution found, I was not using "wait_for_all"  option, I was assuming
> that "two_node: 1"
> would be sufficient:
>
> nodelist {
>     node { ring0_addr: 10.8.9.151  }
>     node { ring0_addr: 10.8.9.152  }
> }
> ###previously:
> quorum {
>     two_node:   1
>     provider:   corosync_votequorum
> }
> ###now/fix:
> quorum {
>     two_node:   1
>     provider:   corosync_votequorum
>     wait_for_all: 0  }
>
> My observation:
> when I was not using "wait_for_all: 0" in corosync.conf, only ocfs2
> resources were
> not running, rest of the resources were running fine because:
>     a - "two_node: 1" in corosync.conf file.
>     b - "no-quorum-policy=ignore" in cib.

If you now loose network-connection between the two nodes
one node might be lucky to fence the other.
If it is set to just power-off the other you are probably fine.
(With sbd you can achieve this behavior if you configure it
to just come up if the corresponding slot is clean.)
If fencing reboots the other node that one would come up
and right away fence the first doing startup-fencing.

>
> @ Klaus
> > what I tried to point out is that "no-quorum-policy=ignore"
> >is dangerous for services that do require a resource-manager. If you
> don't
> >have any of those go with a systemd startup.
> >
> running a single node is obviously something in-acceptable, but say if
> both the nodes crashes
> and only node come back and if I start the resources via systemd then
> the day the other node
> come back, I have to stop the services via systemd, to start the
> resources via cluster, while if a
> single node cluster was running the other node simply joins the
> cluster and no downtime would occur.

I had meant (a little bit provocative ;-) ) consider if you need the
resources to be started via a
resource-manager at all.

Klaus
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Muhammad Sharfuddin
>
> On 3/13/2018 11:20 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 13.03.2018 17:32, Klaus Wenninger пишет:
>>> On 03/13/2018 02:30 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:
 Yes, by saying pacemaker,  I meant to say corosync as well.

 Is there any fix ? or a two node cluster can't run ocfs2 resources
 when one node is offline ?
>>> Actually there can't be a "fix" as 2 nodes are just not enough
>>> for a partial-cluster to be quorate in the classical sense
>>> (more votes than half of the cluster nodes).
>>>
>>> So to still be able to use it we have this 2-node config that
>>> permanently sets quorum. But not to run into issues on
>>> startup we need it to require both nodes seeing each
>>> other once.
>>>
>> I'm rather confused. I have run quite a lot of 2 node clusters and
>> standard way to resolve it is to require fencing on startup. Then single
>> node may assume it can safely proceed with starting resources. So it is
>> rather unexpected to suddenly read "cannot be fixed".
>>
>>> So this is definitely nothing that is specific to ocfs2.
>>> It just looks specific to ocfs2 because you've disabled
>>> quorum for pacemaker.
>>> To be honnest doing this you wouldn't need a resource-manager
>>> at all and could just start up your services using systemd.
>>>
>>> If you don't want a full 3rd node, and still want to handle cases
>>> where one node doesn't come up after a full shutdown of
>>> all nodes, you probably could go for a setup with qdevice.
 Regards,
>>> Klaus
>>>
 -- 
 Regards,
 Muhammad Sharfuddin

 On 3/13/2018 6:16 PM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> On 03/13/2018 02:03 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 1 - if I put a node(node2) offline; ocfs2 resources keep running on
>> online node(node1)
>>
>> 2 - while node2 was offline, via cluster I stop/start the ocfs2
>> resource group successfully so many times in a row.
>>
>> 3 - while node2 was offline; I restart the pacemaker service on the
>> node1 and then tries to start the ocfs2 resource group, dlm started
>> but ocfs2 file system resource does not start.
>>
>> Nutshell:
>>
>> a - both nodes must be online to start the ocfs2 resource.
>>
>> b - if one crashes or offline(gracefully) ocfs2 resource keeps
>> running
>> on the other/surviving node.
>>
>> c - while one node was offline, we can stop/start the ocfs2 resource
>> group on the surviving node but if we stops the pacemaker service,
>> then ocfs2 file system resource does not start with the following
>> info
>> in the logs:
> >From the logs I would say startup of dlm_controld times out
> because it
> is waiting
> for quorum - which doesn't happen because of wait-for-all.
>> Somehow I miss corosync confiuration in this thread. Do you know
>> wait-for-all is set (how?) or you just assume it?
>>
>>

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: single node fails to start the ocfs2 resource

2018-03-14 Thread Andrei Borzenkov 
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Muhammad Sharfuddin
 wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
>>Somehow I miss corosync confiuration in this thread. Do you know
>>wait-for-all is set (how?) or you just assume it?
>>
> solution found, I was not using "wait_for_all"  option, I was assuming that
> "two_node: 1"
> would be sufficient:
>
> nodelist {
> node { ring0_addr: 10.8.9.151  }
> node { ring0_addr: 10.8.9.152  }
> }
> ###previously:
> quorum {
> two_node:   1
> provider:   corosync_votequorum
> }
> ###now/fix:
> quorum {
> two_node:   1
> provider:   corosync_votequorum
> wait_for_all: 0  }
>
> My observation:
> when I was not using "wait_for_all: 0" in corosync.conf, only ocfs2
> resources were
> not running, rest of the resources were running fine because:

OK, I tested it and indeed, when wait_for_all is (explicitly)
disabled, single node comes up quorate (immediately). It still
requests fencing of other node. So trying to wrap my head around it

1. two_node=1 appears to only permanently set "in quorate" state for
each node. So whether you have 1 or 2 nodes, you are in quorum. E.g.
with expected_votes=2 even if I kill one node I am left with single
node that believes it is in "partition with quorum".

2. two_node=1 implicitly sets wait_for_all which prevents corosync
entering quorate state until all nodes are up. Once they have been up,
we are left in quorum.

As long as OCFS2 requires quorum to be attained this also explains
your observation.

> a - "two_node: 1" in corosync.conf file.
> b - "no-quorum-policy=ignore" in cib.
>

If my reasoning above is correct, I question the value of
wait_for_all=1 with two_node. This is difference between "pretending
we have quorum" and "ignoring we have no quorum", but split between
different layers. End effect is the same as long as corosync quorum
state is not queried directly.

> @ Klaus
>> what I tried to point out is that "no-quorum-policy=ignore"
>>is dangerous for services that do require a resource-manager. If you don't
>>have any of those go with a systemd startup.
>>
> running a single node is obviously something in-acceptable, but say if both
> the nodes crashes
> and only node come back and if I start the resources via systemd then the
> day the other node
> come back, I have to stop the services via systemd, to start the resources
> via cluster, while if a
> single node cluster was running the other node simply joins the cluster and
> no downtime would occur.
>

Exactly. There is simply no other way to sensibly use two node cluster
without it and I argue that notion of quorum is not relevant to most
parts of pacemaker operation at all as long as stonith wirks properly.

Again - if you use two_node=1, your cluster is ALWAYS in quorum except
initial startup. So no-quorum-policy=ignore is redundant. It is only
needed because of implicit wait_for_all=1. But if everyone ignores
implicit wait_for_all=1 anyway, what's the point to set it by default?
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: single node fails to start the ocfs2 resource

2018-03-14 Thread Muhammad Sharfuddin 

Hi Andrei,
>Somehow I miss corosync confiuration in this thread. Do you know
>wait-for-all is set (how?) or you just assume it?
>
solution found, I was not using "wait_for_all"  option, I was assuming 
that "two_node: 1"

would be sufficient:

nodelist {
    node { ring0_addr: 10.8.9.151  }
    node { ring0_addr: 10.8.9.152  }
}
###previously:
quorum {
    two_node:   1
    provider:   corosync_votequorum
}
###now/fix:
quorum {
    two_node:   1
    provider:   corosync_votequorum
    wait_for_all: 0  }

My observation:
when I was not using "wait_for_all: 0" in corosync.conf, only ocfs2 
resources were

not running, rest of the resources were running fine because:
    a - "two_node: 1" in corosync.conf file.
    b - "no-quorum-policy=ignore" in cib.

@ Klaus
> what I tried to point out is that "no-quorum-policy=ignore"
>is dangerous for services that do require a resource-manager. If you don't
>have any of those go with a systemd startup.
>
running a single node is obviously something in-acceptable, but say if 
both the nodes crashes
and only node come back and if I start the resources via systemd then 
the day the other node
come back, I have to stop the services via systemd, to start the 
resources via cluster, while if a
single node cluster was running the other node simply joins the cluster 
and no downtime would occur.


--
Regards,
Muhammad Sharfuddin

On 3/13/2018 11:20 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:

13.03.2018 17:32, Klaus Wenninger пишет:

On 03/13/2018 02:30 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:

Yes, by saying pacemaker,  I meant to say corosync as well.

Is there any fix ? or a two node cluster can't run ocfs2 resources
when one node is offline ?

Actually there can't be a "fix" as 2 nodes are just not enough
for a partial-cluster to be quorate in the classical sense
(more votes than half of the cluster nodes).

So to still be able to use it we have this 2-node config that
permanently sets quorum. But not to run into issues on
startup we need it to require both nodes seeing each
other once.


I'm rather confused. I have run quite a lot of 2 node clusters and
standard way to resolve it is to require fencing on startup. Then single
node may assume it can safely proceed with starting resources. So it is
rather unexpected to suddenly read "cannot be fixed".


So this is definitely nothing that is specific to ocfs2.
It just looks specific to ocfs2 because you've disabled
quorum for pacemaker.
To be honnest doing this you wouldn't need a resource-manager
at all and could just start up your services using systemd.

If you don't want a full 3rd node, and still want to handle cases
where one node doesn't come up after a full shutdown of
all nodes, you probably could go for a setup with qdevice.

Regards,

Klaus


--
Regards,
Muhammad Sharfuddin

On 3/13/2018 6:16 PM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:

On 03/13/2018 02:03 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:

Hi,

1 - if I put a node(node2) offline; ocfs2 resources keep running on
online node(node1)

2 - while node2 was offline, via cluster I stop/start the ocfs2
resource group successfully so many times in a row.

3 - while node2 was offline; I restart the pacemaker service on the
node1 and then tries to start the ocfs2 resource group, dlm started
but ocfs2 file system resource does not start.

Nutshell:

a - both nodes must be online to start the ocfs2 resource.

b - if one crashes or offline(gracefully) ocfs2 resource keeps running
on the other/surviving node.

c - while one node was offline, we can stop/start the ocfs2 resource
group on the surviving node but if we stops the pacemaker service,
then ocfs2 file system resource does not start with the following info
in the logs:

>From the logs I would say startup of dlm_controld times out because it
is waiting
for quorum - which doesn't happen because of wait-for-all.

Somehow I miss corosync confiuration in this thread. Do you know
wait-for-all is set (how?) or you just assume it?

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: single node fails to start the ocfs2 resource

2018-03-13 Thread Klaus Wenninger 
On 03/13/2018 03:43 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the explanation. But other then the ocfs2 resource
> group, this cluster starts all other resources
>
> on a single node, without any issue just because the use of
> "no-quorum-policy=ignore" option.

Yes I know. And what I tried to point out is that "no-quorum-policy=ignore"
is dangerous for services that do require a resource-manager. If you don't
have any of those go with a systemd startup.

Regards,
Klaus

>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Muhammad Sharfuddin
>
> On 3/13/2018 7:32 PM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
>> On 03/13/2018 02:30 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:
>>> Yes, by saying pacemaker,  I meant to say corosync as well.
>>>
>>> Is there any fix ? or a two node cluster can't run ocfs2 resources
>>> when one node is offline ?
>> Actually there can't be a "fix" as 2 nodes are just not enough
>> for a partial-cluster to be quorate in the classical sense
>> (more votes than half of the cluster nodes).
>>
>> So to still be able to use it we have this 2-node config that
>> permanently sets quorum. But not to run into issues on
>> startup we need it to require both nodes seeing each
>> other once.
>>
>> So this is definitely nothing that is specific to ocfs2.
>> It just looks specific to ocfs2 because you've disabled
>> quorum for pacemaker.
>> To be honnest doing this you wouldn't need a resource-manager
>> at all and could just start up your services using systemd.
>>
>> If you don't want a full 3rd node, and still want to handle cases
>> where one node doesn't come up after a full shutdown of
>> all nodes, you probably could go for a setup with qdevice.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Klaus
>>
>>> -- 
>>> Regards,
>>> Muhammad Sharfuddin
>>>
>>> On 3/13/2018 6:16 PM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
 On 03/13/2018 02:03 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 1 - if I put a node(node2) offline; ocfs2 resources keep running on
> online node(node1)
>
> 2 - while node2 was offline, via cluster I stop/start the ocfs2
> resource group successfully so many times in a row.
>
> 3 - while node2 was offline; I restart the pacemaker service on the
> node1 and then tries to start the ocfs2 resource group, dlm started
> but ocfs2 file system resource does not start.
>
> Nutshell:
>
> a - both nodes must be online to start the ocfs2 resource.
>
> b - if one crashes or offline(gracefully) ocfs2 resource keeps
> running
> on the other/surviving node.
>
> c - while one node was offline, we can stop/start the ocfs2 resource
> group on the surviving node but if we stops the pacemaker service,
> then ocfs2 file system resource does not start with the following
> info
> in the logs:
 >From the logs I would say startup of dlm_controld times out
 because it
 is waiting
 for quorum - which doesn't happen because of wait-for-all.
 Question is if you really just stopped pacemaker or if you stopped
 corosync as well.
 In the latter case I would say it is the expected behavior.

 Regards,
 Klaus
  
> lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start
> call_id:53
> Filesystem(p-fssapmnt)[5139]: INFO: Running start for
> /dev/mapper/sapmnt on /sapmnt
> kernel: [  706.162676] dlm: Using TCP for communications
> kernel: [  706.162916] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: joining
> the lockspace group...
> dlm_controld[5105]: 759 fence work wait for quorum
> dlm_controld[5105]: 764 BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9 wait for
> quorum
> lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0 process (PID 5139) timed out
> lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0:5139 - timed out after
> 6ms
> lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start
> call_id:53 pid:5139 exit-code:1 exec-time:60002ms queue-time:0ms
> kernel: [  766.056514] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group
> event done -512 0
> kernel: [  766.056528] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group
> join failed -512 0
> crmd[4320]:   notice: Result of stop operation for p-fssapmnt on
> pipci001: 0 (ok)
> crmd[4320]:   notice: Initiating stop operation dlm_stop_0 locally on
> pipci001
> lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56
> dlm_controld[5105]: 766 shutdown ignored, active lockspaces
> lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0 process (PID 5326) timed out
> lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0:5326 - timed out after 10ms
> lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56
> pid:5326 exit-code:1 exec-time:13ms queue-time:0ms
> crmd[4320]:    error: Result of stop operation for dlm on pipci001:
> Timed Out
> crmd[4320]:  warning: Action 15 (dlm_stop_0) on pipci001 failed
> (target: 0 vs. rc: 1): Error
> crmd[4320]:   notice: Transition aborted by operation dlm_stop_0
> 'modify' on pipci001: Event failed
>

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: single node fails to start the ocfs2 resource

2018-03-13 Thread Muhammad Sharfuddin 
Thanks a lot for the explanation. But other then the ocfs2 resource 
group, this cluster starts all other resources


on a single node, without any issue just because the use of 
"no-quorum-policy=ignore" option.


--
Regards,
Muhammad Sharfuddin

On 3/13/2018 7:32 PM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:

On 03/13/2018 02:30 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:

Yes, by saying pacemaker,  I meant to say corosync as well.

Is there any fix ? or a two node cluster can't run ocfs2 resources
when one node is offline ?

Actually there can't be a "fix" as 2 nodes are just not enough
for a partial-cluster to be quorate in the classical sense
(more votes than half of the cluster nodes).

So to still be able to use it we have this 2-node config that
permanently sets quorum. But not to run into issues on
startup we need it to require both nodes seeing each
other once.

So this is definitely nothing that is specific to ocfs2.
It just looks specific to ocfs2 because you've disabled
quorum for pacemaker.
To be honnest doing this you wouldn't need a resource-manager
at all and could just start up your services using systemd.

If you don't want a full 3rd node, and still want to handle cases
where one node doesn't come up after a full shutdown of
all nodes, you probably could go for a setup with qdevice.

Regards,
Klaus


--
Regards,
Muhammad Sharfuddin

On 3/13/2018 6:16 PM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:

On 03/13/2018 02:03 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:

Hi,

1 - if I put a node(node2) offline; ocfs2 resources keep running on
online node(node1)

2 - while node2 was offline, via cluster I stop/start the ocfs2
resource group successfully so many times in a row.

3 - while node2 was offline; I restart the pacemaker service on the
node1 and then tries to start the ocfs2 resource group, dlm started
but ocfs2 file system resource does not start.

Nutshell:

a - both nodes must be online to start the ocfs2 resource.

b - if one crashes or offline(gracefully) ocfs2 resource keeps running
on the other/surviving node.

c - while one node was offline, we can stop/start the ocfs2 resource
group on the surviving node but if we stops the pacemaker service,
then ocfs2 file system resource does not start with the following info
in the logs:

>From the logs I would say startup of dlm_controld times out because it
is waiting
for quorum - which doesn't happen because of wait-for-all.
Question is if you really just stopped pacemaker or if you stopped
corosync as well.
In the latter case I would say it is the expected behavior.

Regards,
Klaus
  

lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start
call_id:53
Filesystem(p-fssapmnt)[5139]: INFO: Running start for
/dev/mapper/sapmnt on /sapmnt
kernel: [  706.162676] dlm: Using TCP for communications
kernel: [  706.162916] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: joining
the lockspace group...
dlm_controld[5105]: 759 fence work wait for quorum
dlm_controld[5105]: 764 BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9 wait for
quorum
lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0 process (PID 5139) timed out
lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0:5139 - timed out after 6ms
lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start
call_id:53 pid:5139 exit-code:1 exec-time:60002ms queue-time:0ms
kernel: [  766.056514] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group
event done -512 0
kernel: [  766.056528] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group
join failed -512 0
crmd[4320]:   notice: Result of stop operation for p-fssapmnt on
pipci001: 0 (ok)
crmd[4320]:   notice: Initiating stop operation dlm_stop_0 locally on
pipci001
lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56
dlm_controld[5105]: 766 shutdown ignored, active lockspaces
lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0 process (PID 5326) timed out
lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0:5326 - timed out after 10ms
lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56
pid:5326 exit-code:1 exec-time:13ms queue-time:0ms
crmd[4320]:    error: Result of stop operation for dlm on pipci001:
Timed Out
crmd[4320]:  warning: Action 15 (dlm_stop_0) on pipci001 failed
(target: 0 vs. rc: 1): Error
crmd[4320]:   notice: Transition aborted by operation dlm_stop_0
'modify' on pipci001: Event failed
crmd[4320]:  warning: Action 15 (dlm_stop_0) on pipci001 failed
(target: 0 vs. rc: 1): Error
pengine[4319]:   notice: Watchdog will be used via SBD if fencing is
required
pengine[4319]:   notice: On loss of CCM Quorum: Ignore
pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op stop for dlm:0 on
pipci001: unknown error (1)
pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op stop for dlm:0 on
pipci001: unknown error (1)
pengine[4319]:  warning: Cluster node pipci001 will be fenced: dlm:0
failed there
pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op start for p-fssapmnt:0
on pipci001: unknown error (1)
pengine[4319]:   notice: Stop of failed resource dlm:0 is implicit
after pipci001 is fenced
pengine[4319]:   notice:  * Fence pipci001
pengine[4319]:   notice: Stop    sbd-stonith#011(pipci001)

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: single node fails to start the ocfs2 resource

2018-03-13 Thread Klaus Wenninger 
On 03/13/2018 02:30 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:
> Yes, by saying pacemaker,  I meant to say corosync as well.
>
> Is there any fix ? or a two node cluster can't run ocfs2 resources
> when one node is offline ?

Actually there can't be a "fix" as 2 nodes are just not enough
for a partial-cluster to be quorate in the classical sense
(more votes than half of the cluster nodes).

So to still be able to use it we have this 2-node config that
permanently sets quorum. But not to run into issues on
startup we need it to require both nodes seeing each
other once.

So this is definitely nothing that is specific to ocfs2.
It just looks specific to ocfs2 because you've disabled
quorum for pacemaker.
To be honnest doing this you wouldn't need a resource-manager
at all and could just start up your services using systemd.

If you don't want a full 3rd node, and still want to handle cases
where one node doesn't come up after a full shutdown of
all nodes, you probably could go for a setup with qdevice.

Regards,
Klaus

>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Muhammad Sharfuddin
>
> On 3/13/2018 6:16 PM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
>> On 03/13/2018 02:03 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 1 - if I put a node(node2) offline; ocfs2 resources keep running on
>>> online node(node1)
>>>
>>> 2 - while node2 was offline, via cluster I stop/start the ocfs2
>>> resource group successfully so many times in a row.
>>>
>>> 3 - while node2 was offline; I restart the pacemaker service on the
>>> node1 and then tries to start the ocfs2 resource group, dlm started
>>> but ocfs2 file system resource does not start.
>>>
>>> Nutshell:
>>>
>>> a - both nodes must be online to start the ocfs2 resource.
>>>
>>> b - if one crashes or offline(gracefully) ocfs2 resource keeps running
>>> on the other/surviving node.
>>>
>>> c - while one node was offline, we can stop/start the ocfs2 resource
>>> group on the surviving node but if we stops the pacemaker service,
>>> then ocfs2 file system resource does not start with the following info
>>> in the logs:
>> >From the logs I would say startup of dlm_controld times out because it
>> is waiting
>> for quorum - which doesn't happen because of wait-for-all.
>> Question is if you really just stopped pacemaker or if you stopped
>> corosync as well.
>> In the latter case I would say it is the expected behavior.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Klaus
>>  
>>> lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start
>>> call_id:53
>>> Filesystem(p-fssapmnt)[5139]: INFO: Running start for
>>> /dev/mapper/sapmnt on /sapmnt
>>> kernel: [  706.162676] dlm: Using TCP for communications
>>> kernel: [  706.162916] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: joining
>>> the lockspace group...
>>> dlm_controld[5105]: 759 fence work wait for quorum
>>> dlm_controld[5105]: 764 BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9 wait for
>>> quorum
>>> lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0 process (PID 5139) timed out
>>> lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0:5139 - timed out after 6ms
>>> lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start
>>> call_id:53 pid:5139 exit-code:1 exec-time:60002ms queue-time:0ms
>>> kernel: [  766.056514] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group
>>> event done -512 0
>>> kernel: [  766.056528] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group
>>> join failed -512 0
>>> crmd[4320]:   notice: Result of stop operation for p-fssapmnt on
>>> pipci001: 0 (ok)
>>> crmd[4320]:   notice: Initiating stop operation dlm_stop_0 locally on
>>> pipci001
>>> lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56
>>> dlm_controld[5105]: 766 shutdown ignored, active lockspaces
>>> lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0 process (PID 5326) timed out
>>> lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0:5326 - timed out after 10ms
>>> lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56
>>> pid:5326 exit-code:1 exec-time:13ms queue-time:0ms
>>> crmd[4320]:    error: Result of stop operation for dlm on pipci001:
>>> Timed Out
>>> crmd[4320]:  warning: Action 15 (dlm_stop_0) on pipci001 failed
>>> (target: 0 vs. rc: 1): Error
>>> crmd[4320]:   notice: Transition aborted by operation dlm_stop_0
>>> 'modify' on pipci001: Event failed
>>> crmd[4320]:  warning: Action 15 (dlm_stop_0) on pipci001 failed
>>> (target: 0 vs. rc: 1): Error
>>> pengine[4319]:   notice: Watchdog will be used via SBD if fencing is
>>> required
>>> pengine[4319]:   notice: On loss of CCM Quorum: Ignore
>>> pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op stop for dlm:0 on
>>> pipci001: unknown error (1)
>>> pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op stop for dlm:0 on
>>> pipci001: unknown error (1)
>>> pengine[4319]:  warning: Cluster node pipci001 will be fenced: dlm:0
>>> failed there
>>> pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op start for p-fssapmnt:0
>>> on pipci001: unknown error (1)
>>> pengine[4319]:   notice: Stop of failed resource dlm:0 is implicit
>>> after pipci001 is fenced
>>> pengine[4319]:   notice:  * Fence pipci001
>>> pengine[4319]:  

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: single node fails to start the ocfs2 resource

2018-03-13 Thread Klaus Wenninger 
On 03/13/2018 02:03 PM, Muhammad Sharfuddin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 1 - if I put a node(node2) offline; ocfs2 resources keep running on
> online node(node1)
>
> 2 - while node2 was offline, via cluster I stop/start the ocfs2
> resource group successfully so many times in a row.
>
> 3 - while node2 was offline; I restart the pacemaker service on the
> node1 and then tries to start the ocfs2 resource group, dlm started
> but ocfs2 file system resource does not start.
>
> Nutshell:
>
> a - both nodes must be online to start the ocfs2 resource.
>
> b - if one crashes or offline(gracefully) ocfs2 resource keeps running
> on the other/surviving node.
>
> c - while one node was offline, we can stop/start the ocfs2 resource
> group on the surviving node but if we stops the pacemaker service,
> then ocfs2 file system resource does not start with the following info
> in the logs:

From the logs I would say startup of dlm_controld times out because it
is waiting
for quorum - which doesn't happen because of wait-for-all.
Question is if you really just stopped pacemaker or if you stopped
corosync as well.
In the latter case I would say it is the expected behavior.

Regards,
Klaus
 
>
> lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start call_id:53
> Filesystem(p-fssapmnt)[5139]: INFO: Running start for
> /dev/mapper/sapmnt on /sapmnt
> kernel: [  706.162676] dlm: Using TCP for communications
> kernel: [  706.162916] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: joining
> the lockspace group...
> dlm_controld[5105]: 759 fence work wait for quorum
> dlm_controld[5105]: 764 BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9 wait for quorum
> lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0 process (PID 5139) timed out
> lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0:5139 - timed out after 6ms
> lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start
> call_id:53 pid:5139 exit-code:1 exec-time:60002ms queue-time:0ms
> kernel: [  766.056514] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group
> event done -512 0
> kernel: [  766.056528] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group
> join failed -512 0
> crmd[4320]:   notice: Result of stop operation for p-fssapmnt on
> pipci001: 0 (ok)
> crmd[4320]:   notice: Initiating stop operation dlm_stop_0 locally on
> pipci001
> lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56
> dlm_controld[5105]: 766 shutdown ignored, active lockspaces
> lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0 process (PID 5326) timed out
> lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0:5326 - timed out after 10ms
> lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56
> pid:5326 exit-code:1 exec-time:13ms queue-time:0ms
> crmd[4320]:    error: Result of stop operation for dlm on pipci001:
> Timed Out
> crmd[4320]:  warning: Action 15 (dlm_stop_0) on pipci001 failed
> (target: 0 vs. rc: 1): Error
> crmd[4320]:   notice: Transition aborted by operation dlm_stop_0
> 'modify' on pipci001: Event failed
> crmd[4320]:  warning: Action 15 (dlm_stop_0) on pipci001 failed
> (target: 0 vs. rc: 1): Error
> pengine[4319]:   notice: Watchdog will be used via SBD if fencing is
> required
> pengine[4319]:   notice: On loss of CCM Quorum: Ignore
> pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op stop for dlm:0 on
> pipci001: unknown error (1)
> pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op stop for dlm:0 on
> pipci001: unknown error (1)
> pengine[4319]:  warning: Cluster node pipci001 will be fenced: dlm:0
> failed there
> pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op start for p-fssapmnt:0
> on pipci001: unknown error (1)
> pengine[4319]:   notice: Stop of failed resource dlm:0 is implicit
> after pipci001 is fenced
> pengine[4319]:   notice:  * Fence pipci001
> pengine[4319]:   notice: Stop    sbd-stonith#011(pipci001)
> pengine[4319]:   notice: Stop    dlm:0#011(pipci001)
> crmd[4320]:   notice: Requesting fencing (reboot) of node pipci001
> stonith-ng[4316]:   notice: Client crmd.4320.4c2f757b wants to fence
> (reboot) 'pipci001' with device '(any)'
> stonith-ng[4316]:   notice: Requesting peer fencing (reboot) of pipci001
> stonith-ng[4316]:   notice: sbd-stonith can fence (reboot) pipci001:
> dynamic-list
>
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Muhammad Sharfuddin | +923332144823 | nds.com.pk
>
> On 3/13/2018 1:04 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'd recommend this:
>> Cleanly boot your nodes, avoiding any manual operation with cluster
>> resources. Keep the logs.
>> Then start your tests, keeping the logs for each.
>> Try to fix issues by reading the logs and adjusting the cluster
>> configuration, and not by starting commands that the cluster should
>> start.
>>
>> We had an 2-node OCFS2 cluster running for quite some time with
>> SLES11, but now the cluster is three nodes. To me the output of
>> "crm_mon -1Arfj" combined with having set record-pending=true was
>> very valuable finding problems.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ulrich
>>
>>
> Muhammad Sharfuddin  schrieb am
> 13.03.2018 um 08:43 in
>> Nachricht

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: single node fails to start the ocfs2 resource

2018-03-13 Thread Muhammad Sharfuddin 

Hi,

1 - if I put a node(node2) offline; ocfs2 resources keep running on 
online node(node1)


2 - while node2 was offline, via cluster I stop/start the ocfs2 resource 
group successfully so many times in a row.


3 - while node2 was offline; I restart the pacemaker service on the 
node1 and then tries to start the ocfs2 resource group, dlm started but 
ocfs2 file system resource does not start.


Nutshell:

a - both nodes must be online to start the ocfs2 resource.

b - if one crashes or offline(gracefully) ocfs2 resource keeps running 
on the other/surviving node.


c - while one node was offline, we can stop/start the ocfs2 resource 
group on the surviving node but if we stops the pacemaker service, then 
ocfs2 file system resource does not start with the following info in the 
logs:


lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start call_id:53
Filesystem(p-fssapmnt)[5139]: INFO: Running start for /dev/mapper/sapmnt 
on /sapmnt

kernel: [  706.162676] dlm: Using TCP for communications
kernel: [  706.162916] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: joining 
the lockspace group...

dlm_controld[5105]: 759 fence work wait for quorum
dlm_controld[5105]: 764 BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9 wait for quorum
lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0 process (PID 5139) timed out
lrmd[4317]:  warning: p-fssapmnt_start_0:5139 - timed out after 6ms
lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:p-fssapmnt action:start call_id:53 
pid:5139 exit-code:1 exec-time:60002ms queue-time:0ms
kernel: [  766.056514] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group 
event done -512 0
kernel: [  766.056528] dlm: BFA9FF042AA045F4822C2A6A06020EE9: group join 
failed -512 0
crmd[4320]:   notice: Result of stop operation for p-fssapmnt on 
pipci001: 0 (ok)
crmd[4320]:   notice: Initiating stop operation dlm_stop_0 locally on 
pipci001

lrmd[4317]:   notice: executing - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56
dlm_controld[5105]: 766 shutdown ignored, active lockspaces
lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0 process (PID 5326) timed out
lrmd[4317]:  warning: dlm_stop_0:5326 - timed out after 10ms
lrmd[4317]:   notice: finished - rsc:dlm action:stop call_id:56 pid:5326 
exit-code:1 exec-time:13ms queue-time:0ms
crmd[4320]:    error: Result of stop operation for dlm on pipci001: 
Timed Out
crmd[4320]:  warning: Action 15 (dlm_stop_0) on pipci001 failed (target: 
0 vs. rc: 1): Error
crmd[4320]:   notice: Transition aborted by operation dlm_stop_0 
'modify' on pipci001: Event failed
crmd[4320]:  warning: Action 15 (dlm_stop_0) on pipci001 failed (target: 
0 vs. rc: 1): Error
pengine[4319]:   notice: Watchdog will be used via SBD if fencing is 
required

pengine[4319]:   notice: On loss of CCM Quorum: Ignore
pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op stop for dlm:0 on 
pipci001: unknown error (1)
pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op stop for dlm:0 on 
pipci001: unknown error (1)
pengine[4319]:  warning: Cluster node pipci001 will be fenced: dlm:0 
failed there
pengine[4319]:  warning: Processing failed op start for p-fssapmnt:0 on 
pipci001: unknown error (1)
pengine[4319]:   notice: Stop of failed resource dlm:0 is implicit after 
pipci001 is fenced

pengine[4319]:   notice:  * Fence pipci001
pengine[4319]:   notice: Stop    sbd-stonith#011(pipci001)
pengine[4319]:   notice: Stop    dlm:0#011(pipci001)
crmd[4320]:   notice: Requesting fencing (reboot) of node pipci001
stonith-ng[4316]:   notice: Client crmd.4320.4c2f757b wants to fence 
(reboot) 'pipci001' with device '(any)'

stonith-ng[4316]:   notice: Requesting peer fencing (reboot) of pipci001
stonith-ng[4316]:   notice: sbd-stonith can fence (reboot) pipci001: 
dynamic-list



--
Regards,
Muhammad Sharfuddin | +923332144823 | nds.com.pk

On 3/13/2018 1:04 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:

Hi!

I'd recommend this:
Cleanly boot your nodes, avoiding any manual operation with cluster resources. 
Keep the logs.
Then start your tests, keeping the logs for each.
Try to fix issues by reading the logs and adjusting the cluster configuration, 
and not by starting commands that the cluster should start.

We had an 2-node OCFS2 cluster running for quite some time with SLES11, but now the 
cluster is three nodes. To me the output of "crm_mon -1Arfj" combined with 
having set record-pending=true was very valuable finding problems.

Regards,
Ulrich



Muhammad Sharfuddin  schrieb am 13.03.2018 um 08:43 in

Nachricht <7b773ae9-4209-d246-b5c0-2c8b67e62...@nds.com.pk>:

Dear Klaus,

If I understand you properly then, its a fencing issue, and whatever I
am facing is "natural" or "by-design" in a two node cluster where quorum
is incomplete.

I am quite convinced that you have pointed out right because, when I
start the dlm resource via cluster and then tries to start the ocfs2
file system manually from command line, mount command remains hanged and
following events are reported in the logs:

  kernel: [62622.864828] ocfs2: Registered cluster interface user
  kernel: