On 31/01/2024 16:37, lejeczek via Users wrote:
On 31/01/2024 16:06, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:02:12 +0100
lejeczek via Users <users@clusterlabs.org> wrote:
On 29/01/2024 17:22, Ken Gaillot wrote:
On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 13:55 +0100, lejeczek via Users
wrote:
Hi guys.
Is it possible to trigger some... action - I'm
thinking specifically
at shutdown/start.
If not within the cluster then - if you do that -
perhaps outside.
I would like to create/remove constraints, when
cluster starts &
stops, respectively.
many thanks, L.
You could use node status alerts for that, but it's
risky for alert
agents to change the configuration (since that may
result in more
alerts and potentially some sort of infinite loop).
Pacemaker has no concept of a full cluster start/stop,
only node
start/stop. You could approximate that by checking
whether the node
receiving the alert is the only active node.
Another possibility would be to write a resource agent
that does what
you want and order everything else after it. However
it's even more
risky for a resource agent to modify the configuration.
Finally you could write a systemd unit to do what you
want and order it
after pacemaker.
What's wrong with leaving the constraints permanently
configured?
yes, that would be for a node start/stop
I struggle with using constraints to move pgsql (PAF)
master
onto a given node - seems that co/locating paf's master
results in troubles (replication brakes) at/after node
shutdown/reboot (not always, but way too often)
What? What's wrong with colocating PAF's masters exactly?
How does it brake any
replication? What's these constraints you are dealing with?
Could you share your configuration?
Constraints beyond/above of what is required by PAF agent
itself, say...
you have multiple pgSQL cluster with PAF - thus multiple
(separate, for each pgSQL cluster) masters and you want to
spread/balance those across HA cluster
(or in other words - avoid having more that 1 pgsql master
per HA node)
These below, I've tried, those move the master onto chosen
node but.. then the issues I mentioned.
-> $ pcs constraint location PGSQL-PAF-5438-clone prefers
ubusrv1=1002
or
-> $ pcs constraint colocation set PGSQL-PAF-5435-clone
PGSQL-PAF-5434-clone PGSQL-PAF-5433-clone role=Master
require-all=false setoptions score=-1000
Wanted to share an observation - not a measurement of
anything, I did not take those - of different, latest pgSQL
version which I put in place of version 14 which I've been
using all this time.
(also with that upgrade - from Postgres own repos - came
update of PAF)
So, with pgSQL ver. 16 and the same of everything else -
now paf/pgSQL resources behave a lot lot better, survives
just fine all those cases - with ! extra constraints of
course - where previously it had replication failures.
_______________________________________________
Manage your subscription:
https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
