I'm experimenting with startup sequence and co-location control, and think I 
may have stumbled across a bug.

 

I have two xml files that I use in my testing as my initial configuration of a 
two node cluster.  I start each node with no configuration, and then use 
cibadmin to "source in" the xml file.  Each file defines two resources as well 
as a startup order and collocation definition.  The only difference between the 
two files is the syntax I use to specify the startup order.

 

When I use the syntax:

 

<rsc_order id="order-1" first="world1" then="world2" score="INFINITY" />

 

Everything works fine.  I can put either of the two nodes into standby while 
resources are running there, and the resources move to the other node as 
expected.

 

However, when I use the syntax:

 

- <<rsc_order id="order-1">

- <  <resource_set id="order-1-set-1" sequential="true">

  <            <resource_ref id="world1" /> 

  <            <resource_ref id="world2" /> 

  </resource_set>

 </rsc_order>

 

 

Several bad things happen.  First, the resources don't move off the node that 
is put into standby, even though the alternate node is running and able to run 
the resources.  Second, attempting to shut down openais on the node running the 
resources after attempting a forced move (by putting the node into standby) 
leaves both the lrmd and pengine processes running (but children of process 1 
(init), and the resources continue to run on the that node even after openais 
is stopped.

 

I turned debug on in crmd and in the logs and recorded what happens when I 
force standby, and I notice that using the first syntax causes te_rsc_command 
to be executed to send a shut down message to the node where the resources are 
running (which seems to work), while using the second syntax causes 
te_pseudo_action to be called in approximately the same place in the log, but 
no shutdown of resources happens (I can't really tell what this is supposed to 
be doing).

 

Has anyone else noticed this behavior?  Is this a bug, or am I misusing this 
compact syntax somehow?

 

-Frank

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Pacemaker mailing list
Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker

Reply via email to