19.12.2011 14:39, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: > 09.12.2011 08:44, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> >> wrote: >>> 09.12.2011 03:11, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>> >>>>> I investigated on my test cluster what actually happens with dlm and >>>>> fencing. >>>>> >>>>> I added more debug messages to dlm dump, and also did a re-kick of nodes >>>>> after some time. >>>>> >>>>> Results are that stonith history actually doesn't contain any >>>>> information until pacemaker decides to fence node itself. >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> From my PoV that means that the call to >>>>> crm_terminate_member_no_mainloop() does not actually schedule fencing >>>>> operation. >>>> >>>> You're going to have to remind me... what does your copy of >>>> crm_terminate_member_no_mainloop() look like? >>>> This is with the non-cman editions of the controlds too right? >>> >>> Just latest github's version. You changed some dlm_controld.pcmk >>> functionality, so it asks stonithd for fencing results instead of XML >>> magic. But call to crm_terminate_member_no_mainloop() remains the same >>> there. But yes, that version communicates stonithd directly too. >>> >>> SO, the problem here is just with crm_terminate_member_no_mainloop() >>> which for some reason skips actual fencing request. >> >> There should be some logs, either indicating that it tried, or that it >> failed. > > Nothing about fencing. > Only messages about history requests: > > stonith-ng: [1905]: info: stonith_command: Processed st_fence_history > from cluster-dlm: rc=0 > > I even moved all fencing code to dlm_controld to have better control on > what does it do (and not to rebuild pacemaker to play with that code). > dlm_tool dump prints the same line every second, stonith-ng prints > history requests. > > A little bit odd, by I saw one time that fencing request from > cluster-dlm succeeded, but only right after node was fenced by > pacemaker. As a result, node was switched off instead of reboot. > > That raises one more question: is it correct to call st->cmds->fence() > with third parameter set to "off"? > I think that "reboot" is more consistent with the rest of fencing subsystem. > > At the same time, stonith_admin -B succeeds. > The main difference I see is st_opt_sync_call in a latter case. > Will try to experiment with it.
Yeeeesssss!!! Now I see following: Dec 19 11:53:34 vd01-a cluster-dlm: [2474]: info: pacemaker_terminate_member: Requesting that node 1090782474/vd01-b be fenced Dec 19 11:53:34 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: initiate_remote_stonith_op: Initiating remote operation reboot for vd01-b: 21425fc0-4311-40fa-9647-525c3f258471 Dec 19 11:53:34 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: crm_get_peer: Node vd01-c now has id: 1107559690 Dec 19 11:53:34 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: stonith_command: Processed st_query from vd01-c: rc=0 Dec 19 11:53:34 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: crm_get_peer: Node vd01-d now has id: 1124336906 Dec 19 11:53:34 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: stonith_command: Processed st_query from vd01-d: rc=0 Dec 19 11:53:34 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: stonith_command: Processed st_query from vd01-a: rc=0 Dec 19 11:53:34 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: call_remote_stonith: Requesting that vd01-c perform op reboot vd01-b Dec 19 11:53:34 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: crm_get_peer: Node vd01-b now has id: 1090782474 ... Dec 19 11:53:40 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: stonith_command: Processed st_fence_history from cluster-dlm: rc=0 Dec 19 11:53:40 vd01-a crmd: [1910]: info: tengine_stonith_notify: Peer vd01-b was terminated (reboot) by vd01-c for vd01-a (ref=21425fc0-4311-40fa-9647-525c3f258471): OK But, then I see minor issue that node is marked to be fenced again: Dec 19 11:53:40 vd01-a pengine: [1909]: WARN: pe_fence_node: Node vd01-b will be fenced because it is un-expectedly down ... Dec 19 11:53:40 vd01-a pengine: [1909]: WARN: stage6: Scheduling Node vd01-b for STONITH ... Dec 19 11:53:40 vd01-a crmd: [1910]: info: te_fence_node: Executing reboot fencing operation (249) on vd01-b (timeout=60000) ... Dec 19 11:53:40 vd01-a stonith-ng: [1905]: info: call_remote_stonith: Requesting that vd01-c perform op reboot vd01-b And so on. I can't investigated this one in more depth, because I use fence_xvm in this testing cluster, and it has issues when running more than one stonith resource on a node. Also, my RA (in a cluster where this testing cluster runs) undefines VM after failure, so fence_xvm does not see fencing victim in a qpid and is unable to fence it again. May be it is possible to look if node was just fenced and skip redundant fencing? Vladislav _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
