Hi Alex,
Thanks for your response.
For Test #2, I had configured all SUs on the single node SC-1. So, 2 container
SUs and 2 contained SUs are on the same node. In such cases, we can have the
implementation as having only one SU of that node(higher rank SUs may be) to be
the container for all the contained SUs of that node.
Thanks,
Nagendra, 91-9866424860
High Availability Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (www.hasolutions.in)
- OpenSAF Support and Services
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] amf: add support
for container/contained [#70]
From: "Alex Jones" <[email protected]>
Date: 8/29/18 9:29 pm
To: [email protected], "Gary Lee" <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Hi Nagu,
I have a fix for your issue test #1. I will send out a patch along with
changes for code review #1 and #2.
For issue test #2, I think this needs to be handled in the configuration.
In this case because there is no explicit node set for the contained SUs,
su.cc:map_su_to_node will assign a node in the node group. The code is
assigning it to SC-2 in this case, because another SU has been assigned to
SC-1, even though there is no container on SC-2. I'm not sure how we can get
around this without explicitly setting the contained host node in the
configuration. Since the container csi has not yet been assigned, we can't map
it to a container, and so we can't figure out which container we should be on
the same node as. Am I right here?
Alex
On 08/28/2018 09:56 AM, [email protected] wrote:
NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender
Hi Alex,
Code review:
1. Header for few functions are missing.
2. Clc.cc: Need to add '0' in place avnd_comp_clc_inst_try_again_hdler in other
fsm states.
Testing:
1. Uploaded AppConfig-container.xml and AppConfig-contained-2N.xml
Performed:
amf-adm unlock-in safSu=SU1,safSg=Container,safApp=Container
amf-adm unlock safSu=SU1,safSg=Container,safApp=Container
Even I don't perform the following, the contained components are instantiated.
amf-adm unlock-in safSu=SU1,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N
amf-adm unlock safSu=SU1,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N
Aug 28 19:15:11 nags-VirtualBox osafamfnd[28278]: NO
'safSu=SU1,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N' Presence State
UNINSTANTIATED => INSTANTIATING
immlist safSu=SU1,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N will show
saAmfSUPresenceState 3(instantiated) and saAmfSUAdminState 3(locked-in)
Now further admin operation on safSu=SU1,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N
will fail:
root@nags-VirtualBox:/home/nags/views/ajones-review/samples/amf/container#
amf-adm unlock-in safSu=SU1,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N
error - saImmOmAdminOperationInvoke_2 admin-op RETURNED:
SA_AIS_ERR_BAD_OPERATION (20)
error-string: Can't instantiate
'safSu=SU1,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N', whose presence state is '3'
2.This is related to Specs 6.2.2 Assignment of the Container CSI: "If there
are multiple container components on a node which have the active HA state
for a particular container CSI, and one or more service units on the same node
whose
contained components are configured with the same container CSI, it is
implementation-
defined how the Availability Management Framework selects container components
to handle the life cycle of the contained components of these service units.
However, all contained components of a service unit must have the same
associated
container component."
Uploaded AppConfig-container.xml and AppConfig-contained-2N.xml with once
difference that all SUs of container and contained are configured on SC-1.
Perform the following operations, but
safSu=SU2,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N will not get assignments.
amf-adm unlock-in safSu=SU1,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N
amf-adm unlock safSu=SU1,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N
amf-adm unlock-in safSu=SU2,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N
amf-adm unlock safSu=SU2,safSg=Contained_2N,safApp=Contained_2N
amf-adm unlock-in safSu=SU1,safSg=Container,safApp=Container
amf-adm unlock safSu=SU1,safSg=Container,safApp=Container
amf-adm unlock-in safSu=SU2,safSg=Container,safApp=Container
amf-adm unlock safSu=SU2,safSg=Container,safApp=Container
root@nags-VirtualBox:/home/nags/views/ajones-review/samples/amf/container#
amf-state siass
safSISU=safSu=SC-1\,safSg=NoRed\,safApp=OpenSAF,safSi=NoRed1,safApp=OpenSAF
saAmfSISUHAState=ACTIVE(1)
saAmfSISUHAReadinessState=READY_FOR_ASSIGNMENT(1)
safSISU=safSu=SC-1\,safSg=2N\,safApp=OpenSAF,safSi=SC-2N,safApp=OpenSAF
saAmfSISUHAState=ACTIVE(1)
saAmfSISUHAReadinessState=READY_FOR_ASSIGNMENT(1)
safSISU=safSu=SU1\,safSg=Contained_2N\,safApp=Contained_2N,safSi=Contained_2N_1,safApp=Contained_2N
saAmfSISUHAState=ACTIVE(1)
saAmfSISUHAReadinessState=READY_FOR_ASSIGNMENT(1)
safSISU=safSu=SU1\,safSg=Container\,safApp=Container,safSi=Container,safApp=Container
saAmfSISUHAState=ACTIVE(1)
saAmfSISUHAReadinessState=READY_FOR_ASSIGNMENT(1)
safSISU=safSu=SU2\,safSg=Container\,safApp=Container,safSi=Container,safApp=Container
saAmfSISUHAState=ACTIVE(1)
saAmfSISUHAReadinessState=READY_FOR_ASSIGNMENT(1)
I will do further testing.
The documentation need to be done if you haven't tested :
- Headless enabled
- CSI Dep, SI Dep testimg
- Etc.
Thanks,
Nagendra, 91-9866424860
High Availability Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (www.hasolutions.in)
- OpenSAF Support and Services
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] amf: add support
for container/contained [#70]
From: "Alex Jones" <[email protected]>
Date: 8/15/18 11:10 pm
To: "Gary Lee" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
G'day Gary,
I see you were adding the XML file dynamically with "immcfg -f". I hadn't
tried that. I hadn't tried killing the sample app, either.
Here is a patch that should fix both issues. Apply it on top of the latest
big one I sent.
Alex
On 08/13/2018 10:37 PM, Gary Lee wrote:
NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender
Hi Alex
I modified AppConfig-container.xml and changed saAmfSgtRedundancyModel from 4
(NwayAct) to 1 (2N).
The xml still loads and I could unlock, resulting in:
root@SC-1:/var/log# immlist safVersion=1,safSgType=Container
Name Type Value(s)
========================================================================
safVersion SA_STRING_T safVersion=1
saAmfSgtValidSuTypes SA_NAME_T
safVersion=1,safSuType=Container (32)
saAmfSgtRedundancyModel SA_UINT32_T 1 (0x1)
safSISU=safSu=SU2\,safSg=Container\,safApp=Container,safSi=Container,safApp=Container
saAmfSISUHAState=STANDBY(2)
saAmfSISUHAReadinessState=READY_FOR_ASSIGNMENT(1)
safSISU=safSu=SU1\,safSg=Container\,safApp=Container,safSi=Container,safApp=Container
saAmfSISUHAState=ACTIVE(1)
saAmfSISUHAReadinessState=READY_FOR_ASSIGNMENT(1)
Also, have you tried killing the amf_container_demo binary?
Thanks
Gary
On 14/08/18 05:00, Alex Jones wrote:
Hi Gary,
I just resubmitted a new patch which breaks out the different components,
and addresses the other comments here. But, #2 (rejecting all but NWay-active
for container) should already be in there. Is there a specific test you ran
that didn't work?
Alex
On 08/13/2018 02:43 AM, Gary Lee wrote:
NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender
Hi Alex
Some initial comments:
0. Is it possible to split up the patch into amfd / amfnd / common / samples.
Just makes it easier to reply inline.
1. Please compile the container demo by default, and make amf_container_script
world executable.
Eg.
diff --git a/samples/amf/Makefile.am b/samples/amf/Makefile.am
index 447dedd..7ebf9c3 100644
--- a/samples/amf/Makefile.am
+++ b/samples/amf/Makefile.am
@@ -19,5 +19,5 @@ include $(top_srcdir)/Makefile.common
MAINTAINERCLEANFILES = Makefile.in
-SUBDIRS = sa_aware non_sa_aware wrapper proxy api_demo
+SUBDIRS = sa_aware non_sa_aware wrapper proxy api_demo container
diff --git a/samples/amf/container/amf_container_script
b/samples/amf/container/amf_container_script
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
diff --git a/samples/configure.ac b/samples/configure.ac
index 7cf803e..9765d54 100644
--- a/samples/configure.ac
+++ b/samples/configure.ac
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ AC_CONFIG_FILES([ \
amf/wrapper/Makefile \
amf/proxy/Makefile \
amf/api_demo/Makefile \
+ amf/container/Makefile \
cpsv/Makefile \
cpsv/ckpt_demo/Makefile \
cpsv/ckpt_track_demo/Makefile \
2. We should probably reject CCBs that set saAmfSgtRedundancyModel to anything
other than NWayActive, for Containers.
3. Do we need to bump the msg format version to AVSV_AVD_AVND_MSG_FMT_VER_8?
An old amfnd will assert if it gets an AVSV_D2N_CONTAINED_SU_MSG_INFO msg.
Thanks
Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
