>>> Klaus Wenninger <kwenn...@redhat.com> schrieb am 01.03.2022 um 10:22 in Nachricht <CALrDAo0K9POYnV0i5B=hmf9ijpufw_stbctn6drrkckjzr9...@mail.gmail.com>: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:05 AM Ulrich Windl < > ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> For current SLES15 SP3 I noticed an oddity when the node running the DC is >> going to be fenced: >> It seems that another node is performing recovery operations while the old >> DC is not confirmed to be fenced. >> >> Like this (116 is the DC): >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 corosync[6754]: [TOTEM ] A new membership ( >> 172.20.16.18:45612) was formed. Members left: 116 >> >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 corosync[6754]: [MAIN ] Completed service >> synchronization, ready to provide service. >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: Our peer on the DC >> (h16) is dead >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: State transition >> S_NOT_DC -> S_ELECTION >> >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 dlm_controld[8544]: 394518 fence request 116 pid 16307 >> nodedown time 1646094833 fence_all dlm_stonith >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: State transition >> S_ELECTION -> S_INTEGRATION >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 dlm_stonith[16307]: stonith_api_time: Found 1 entries >> for 116/(null): 0 in progress, 0 completed >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-fenced[6973]: notice: Client >> stonith-api.16307.4961743f wants to fence (reboot) '116' with device '(any)' >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-fenced[6973]: notice: Requesting peer >> fencing (reboot) targeting h16 >> >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-schedulerd[6978]: warning: Cluster node h16 >> will be fenced: peer is no longer part of the cluster >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-schedulerd[6978]: warning: Node h16 is >> unclean >> >> (so far, so good) >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-schedulerd[6978]: warning: Scheduling Node >> h16 for STONITH >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-schedulerd[6978]: notice: * Fence (reboot) >> h16 'peer is no longer part of the cluster' >> >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: Initiating monitor >> operation prm_stonith_sbd_monitor_600000 locally on h18 >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: Requesting local >> execution of monitor operation for prm_stonith_sbd on h18 >> Mar 01 01:33:53 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: Initiating stop >> operation prm_cron_snap_v17_stop_0 on h19 >> (isn't h18 playing DC already while h16 isn't fenced yet?) >> > > periodic monitors should happen autonomously. > as long as you don't see pacemaker-schedulerd on h18 calculate a new > transition recovering the resources > everything should be fine.
So what about "prm_cron_snap_v17_stop_0 on h19"? That's not a monitor. > and yes to a certain extent h18 is playing DC (it is elected to be new DC) > - somebody has to schedule fencing. I see the exception for fencing. Is it the quorum that allows h18 to "play DC" while the old DC could be still active on shared storage? Regards, Ulrich > > Klaus > >> >> Mar 01 01:35:23 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: error: Node h18 did not >> send monitor result (via controller) within 90000ms (action timeout plus >> cluster-delay) >> Mar 01 01:35:23 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: error: [Action 26]: >> In-flight resource op prm_stonith_sbd_monitor_600000 on h18 (priority: >> 9900, waiting: (null)) >> Mar 01 01:35:23 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: Transition 0 >> aborted: Action lost >> Mar 01 01:35:23 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: warning: rsc_op 26: >> prm_stonith_sbd_monitor_600000 on h18 timed out >> (whatever that means) >> >> (now the fencing confirmation follows) >> Mar 01 01:35:55 h18 pacemaker-fenced[6973]: notice: Operation 'reboot' >> [16309] (call 2 from stonith-api.16307) for host 'h16' with device >> 'prm_stonith_sbd' returned: 0 (OK) >> Mar 01 01:35:55 h18 pacemaker-fenced[6973]: notice: Operation 'reboot' >> targeting h16 on h18 for stonith-api.16307@h18.36b9a9bb: OK >> Mar 01 01:35:55 h18 stonith-api[16307]: stonith_api_kick: Node 116/(null) >> kicked: reboot >> Mar 01 01:35:55 h18 pacemaker-fenced[6973]: notice: Operation 'reboot' >> targeting h16 on rksaph18 for pacemaker-controld.6980@h18.8ce2f33f >> (merged): OK >> Mar 01 01:35:55 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: Peer h16 was >> terminated (reboot) by h18 on behalf of stonith-api.16307: OK >> Mar 01 01:35:55 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: Stonith operation >> 2/1:0:0:a434124e-3e35-410d-8e17-ef9ae4e4e6eb: OK (0) >> Mar 01 01:35:55 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: Peer h16 was >> terminated (reboot) by h18 on behalf of pacemaker-controld.6980: OK >> >> (actual recovery happens) >> Mar 01 01:35:55 h18 kernel: ocfs2: Begin replay journal (node 116, slot 0) >> on device (9,10) >> >> Mar 01 01:35:55 h18 kernel: md: md10: resync done. >> >> (more actions follow) >> Mar 01 01:35:56 h18 pacemaker-schedulerd[6978]: notice: Calculated >> transition 1, saving inputs in /var/lib/pacemaker/pengine/pe-input-87.bz2 >> >> (actions completed) >> Mar 01 01:37:18 h18 pacemaker-controld[6980]: notice: State transition >> S_TRANSITION_ENGINE -> S_IDLE >> >> (pacemaker-2.0.5+20201202.ba59be712-150300.4.16.1.x86_64) >> >> Did I misunderstand something, or does it look like a bug? >> >> Regards, >> Ulrich >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Manage your subscription: >> https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/ >> >> _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/