On 10/30/2015 05:14 AM, Karthikeyan Ramasamy wrote: > Hello, > We are using Pacemaker to manage the services that run on a node, as part > of a service management framework, and manage the nodes running the services > as a cluster. One service will be running as 1+1 and other services with be > N+1. > > During our testing, we see that the pacemaker processes are taking about > 10-15% of the CPU. We would like to know if this is normal and could the CPU > utilization be minimised.
It's definitely not normal to stay that high for very long. If you can attach your configuration and a sample of your logs, we can look for anything that stands out. > Sample Output of most used CPU process in a Active Manager is > > USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > 189 15766 30.4 0.0 94616 12300 ? Ss 18:01 48:15 > /usr/libexec/pacemaker/cib > 189 15770 28.9 0.0 118320 20276 ? Ss 18:01 45:53 > /usr/libexec/pacemaker/pengine > root 15768 2.6 0.0 76196 3420 ? Ss 18:01 4:12 > /usr/libexec/pacemaker/lrmd > root 15767 15.5 0.0 95380 5764 ? Ss 18:01 24:33 > /usr/libexec/pacemaker/stonithd > > USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > 189 15766 30.5 0.0 94616 12300 ? Ss 18:01 49:58 > /usr/libexec/pacemaker/cib > 189 15770 29.0 0.0 122484 20724 ? Rs 18:01 47:29 > /usr/libexec/pacemaker/pengine > root 15768 2.6 0.0 76196 3420 ? Ss 18:01 4:21 > /usr/libexec/pacemaker/lrmd > root 15767 15.5 0.0 95380 5764 ? Ss 18:01 25:25 > /usr/libexec/pacemaker/stonithd > > > We also observed that the processes are not distributed equally to all the > available cores and saw that Redhat acknowledging that rhel doesn't > distribute to the available cores efficiently. We are trying to use > IRQbalance to spread the processes to the available cores equally. Pacemaker is single-threaded, so each process runs on only one core. It's up to the OS to distribute them, and any modern Linux (including RHEL) will do a good job of that. IRQBalance is useful for balancing IRQ requests across cores, but it doesn't do anything about processes (and doesn't need to). > Please let us know if there is any way we could minimise the CPU utilisation. > We dont require stonith feature, but there is no way stop that daemon from > running to our knowledge. If that is also possible, please let us know. > > Thanks, > Karthik. The logs will help figure out what's going wrong. A lot of people would disagree that you don't require stonith :) Stonith is necessary to recover from many possible failure scenarios, and without it, you may wind up with data corruption or other problems. Setting stonith-enabled=false will keep pacemaker from using stonith, but stonithd will still run. It shouldn't take up significant resources. The load you're seeing is an indication of a problem somewhere. _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://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
