Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker in puppet with cib.xml?

2016-07-22 Thread Jan Pokorný 
On 21/07/16 21:51 +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> Yes, it's counterintuitive to have this asymmetry and it could be
> made to work with some added effort at the side of pcs with
> the original, disapproved, sequence as-is, but that's perhaps
> sound of the future per the referenced pcs bug.
> So take this idiom as a rule of thumb not to be questioned
> any time soon.

...at least until something better is around:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1359057 (open for comments)

-- 
Jan (Poki)


pgprGseIVSXop.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker in puppet with cib.xml?

2016-07-21 Thread Stephano-Shachter, Dylan 
Thanks for all of the help!

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Jan Pokorný  wrote:

> On 21/07/16 16:02 -0400, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote:
> > So I should be using "pcs cluster cib > file" to get the config and then
> > "pcs cluster cib-push --config file" to push it?
>
> If you are going to change the file using "pcs -f " in the
> interim, definitely.
>
> It's perhaps more intuitive to use "pcs cluster cib " form,
> but whatever you like.
>
> > Also I shouldn't have to add --config to the pcs -f commands right?
>
> True, --config only applies to those cib/cib-push commands
> (and should be avoided/used, respectively as explained).
>
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Jan Pokorný 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/07/16 13:52 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> >>> On 07/21/2016 01:35 PM, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote:
>  I want to put the pacemaker config for my two node cluster in puppet
>  but, since it is just one cluster, it seems overkill to use the
> corosync
>  module. If I just have puppet push cib.xml to each machine, will that
>  work? To make changes, I would just use pcs to update things and then
>  copy cib.xml back to puppet. I am not sure what happens when you
> change
>  cib.xml while the cluster is running. Is it safe?
> >>>
> >>> No, pacemaker checksums the CIB and won't accept a file that isn't
> >>> properly signed. Also, the cluster automatically synchronizes changes
> >>> made to the CIB across all nodes, so there is no need to push changes
> >>> more than once.
> >>>
> >>> Since you're using pcs, the update process could go like this:
> >>>
> >>>   # Get the current configuration:
> >>>   pcs cluster cib --config > cib-new.xml
> >>
> >> As I feel guilty for contributing to this misconception with clufter
> >> "pcs commands" output at one point (also see
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1328078; still part of the blame
> >> is in pcs I believe: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1328066),
> >> something has just started screaming in me:
> >>
> >> DO NOT USE pcs cluster cib WITH --config LIKE SUGGESTED, BUT RATHER:
> >>
> >> pcs cluster cib > cib-new.xml
> >>
> >>>   # Make changes:
> >>>   pcs -f cib-new.xml 
> >>>   
> >>
> >> ...as otherwise the modifications like this ^ would fail.
> >>
> >>>   # Upload the configuration changes to the cluster:
> >>>   pcs cluster cib-push --config cib-new.xml
> >>
> >> Note that with cib-push, --config is OK, moreover it's vital as you
> >> really don't want to propagate stale status section and what not
> >> when changing modifying configuration.
> >>
> >> Yes, it's counterintuitive to have this asymmetry and it could be
> >> made to work with some added effort at the side of pcs with
> >> the original, disapproved, sequence as-is, but that's perhaps
> >> sound of the future per the referenced pcs bug.
> >> So take this idiom as a rule of thumb not to be questioned
> >> any time soon.
> >>
> >>> Using "--config" is important so you only work with the configuration
> >>> section of the CIB, and not the dynamically determined cluster
> >>> properties and status.
> >>
> >> (This, apparently, justifies just the cib-push use.)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The first and last commands can be done on any one node, with the
> >>> cluster running. The "pcs -f" commands can be done anywhere/anytime.
>
> --
> Jan (Poki)
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
>
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker in puppet with cib.xml?

2016-07-21 Thread Stephano-Shachter, Dylan 
So I should be using "pcs cluster cib > file" to get the config and then
"pcs cluster cib-push --config file" to push it?

Also I shouldn't have to add --config to the pcs -f commands right?

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Jan Pokorný  wrote:

> On 21/07/16 13:52 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> > On 07/21/2016 01:35 PM, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote:
> >> I want to put the pacemaker config for my two node cluster in puppet
> >> but, since it is just one cluster, it seems overkill to use the corosync
> >> module. If I just have puppet push cib.xml to each machine, will that
> >> work? To make changes, I would just use pcs to update things and then
> >> copy cib.xml back to puppet. I am not sure what happens when you change
> >> cib.xml while the cluster is running. Is it safe?
> >
> > No, pacemaker checksums the CIB and won't accept a file that isn't
> > properly signed. Also, the cluster automatically synchronizes changes
> > made to the CIB across all nodes, so there is no need to push changes
> > more than once.
> >
> > Since you're using pcs, the update process could go like this:
> >
> >   # Get the current configuration:
> >   pcs cluster cib --config > cib-new.xml
>
> As I feel guilty for contributing to this misconception with clufter
> "pcs commands" output at one point (also see
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1328078; still part of the blame
> is in pcs I believe: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1328066),
> something has just started screaming in me:
>
> DO NOT USE pcs cluster cib WITH --config LIKE SUGGESTED, BUT RATHER:
>
> pcs cluster cib > cib-new.xml
>
> >   # Make changes:
> >   pcs -f cib-new.xml 
> >   
>
> ...as otherwise the modifications like this ^ would fail.
>
> >   # Upload the configuration changes to the cluster:
> >   pcs cluster cib-push --config cib-new.xml
>
> Note that with cib-push, --config is OK, moreover it's vital as you
> really don't want to propagate stale status section and what not
> when changing modifying configuration.
>
> Yes, it's counterintuitive to have this asymmetry and it could be
> made to work with some added effort at the side of pcs with
> the original, disapproved, sequence as-is, but that's perhaps
> sound of the future per the referenced pcs bug.
> So take this idiom as a rule of thumb not to be questioned
> any time soon.
>
> > Using "--config" is important so you only work with the configuration
> > section of the CIB, and not the dynamically determined cluster
> > properties and status.
>
> (This, apparently, justifies just the cib-push use.)
>
> >
> > The first and last commands can be done on any one node, with the
> > cluster running. The "pcs -f" commands can be done anywhere/anytime.
>
> --
> Jan (Poki)
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
>
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker in puppet with cib.xml?

2016-07-21 Thread Jan Pokorný 
On 21/07/16 13:52 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 07/21/2016 01:35 PM, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote:
>> I want to put the pacemaker config for my two node cluster in puppet
>> but, since it is just one cluster, it seems overkill to use the corosync
>> module. If I just have puppet push cib.xml to each machine, will that
>> work? To make changes, I would just use pcs to update things and then
>> copy cib.xml back to puppet. I am not sure what happens when you change
>> cib.xml while the cluster is running. Is it safe?
> 
> No, pacemaker checksums the CIB and won't accept a file that isn't
> properly signed. Also, the cluster automatically synchronizes changes
> made to the CIB across all nodes, so there is no need to push changes
> more than once.
> 
> Since you're using pcs, the update process could go like this:
> 
>   # Get the current configuration:
>   pcs cluster cib --config > cib-new.xml

As I feel guilty for contributing to this misconception with clufter
"pcs commands" output at one point (also see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1328078; still part of the blame
is in pcs I believe: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1328066),
something has just started screaming in me:

DO NOT USE pcs cluster cib WITH --config LIKE SUGGESTED, BUT RATHER:

pcs cluster cib > cib-new.xml

>   # Make changes:
>   pcs -f cib-new.xml 
>   

...as otherwise the modifications like this ^ would fail.

>   # Upload the configuration changes to the cluster:
>   pcs cluster cib-push --config cib-new.xml

Note that with cib-push, --config is OK, moreover it's vital as you
really don't want to propagate stale status section and what not
when changing modifying configuration.

Yes, it's counterintuitive to have this asymmetry and it could be
made to work with some added effort at the side of pcs with
the original, disapproved, sequence as-is, but that's perhaps
sound of the future per the referenced pcs bug.
So take this idiom as a rule of thumb not to be questioned
any time soon.

> Using "--config" is important so you only work with the configuration
> section of the CIB, and not the dynamically determined cluster
> properties and status.

(This, apparently, justifies just the cib-push use.)

> 
> The first and last commands can be done on any one node, with the
> cluster running. The "pcs -f" commands can be done anywhere/anytime.

-- 
Jan (Poki)


pgpDt2Pl7rGO3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker in puppet with cib.xml?

2016-07-21 Thread Ken Gaillot 
On 07/21/2016 02:20 PM, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote:
> I am familiar with pcs cluster cib.
> 
> What I am thinking of doing is running "pcs cluster cib --config >
> config.xml" to get a valid config.
> 
> I will then put config.xml on the puppet server and have it push the
> file and run "pcs cluster cib-push --config config.xml" every hour. 
> 
> Will this cause any problems due to pushing the config multiple times?

No, that's fine.

> This would allow me to make small edits to the file in puppet and have
> it pushed automatically. If I wanted to make any big changes, I can make
> them with pcs and just pull another config.

Sounds good.

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Ken Gaillot  > wrote:
> 
> On 07/21/2016 01:35 PM, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I want to put the pacemaker config for my two node cluster in puppet
> > but, since it is just one cluster, it seems overkill to use the corosync
> > module. If I just have puppet push cib.xml to each machine, will that
> > work? To make changes, I would just use pcs to update things and then
> > copy cib.xml back to puppet. I am not sure what happens when you change
> > cib.xml while the cluster is running. Is it safe?
> 
> No, pacemaker checksums the CIB and won't accept a file that isn't
> properly signed. Also, the cluster automatically synchronizes changes
> made to the CIB across all nodes, so there is no need to push changes
> more than once.
> 
> Since you're using pcs, the update process could go like this:
> 
>   # Get the current configuration:
>   pcs cluster cib --config > cib-new.xml
> 
>   # Make changes:
>   pcs -f cib-new.xml 
>   
> 
>   # Upload the configuration changes to the cluster:
>   pcs cluster cib-push --config cib-new.xml
> 
> Using "--config" is important so you only work with the configuration
> section of the CIB, and not the dynamically determined cluster
> properties and status.
> 
> The first and last commands can be done on any one node, with the
> cluster running. The "pcs -f" commands can be done anywhere/anytime.

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker in puppet with cib.xml?

2016-07-21 Thread Stephano-Shachter, Dylan 
I am familiar with pcs cluster cib.

What I am thinking of doing is running "pcs cluster cib --config >
config.xml" to get a valid config.

I will then put config.xml on the puppet server and have it push the file
and run "pcs cluster cib-push --config config.xml" every hour.

Will this cause any problems due to pushing the config multiple times? This
would allow me to make small edits to the file in puppet and have it pushed
automatically. If I wanted to make any big changes, I can make them with
pcs and just pull another config.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Ken Gaillot  wrote:

> On 07/21/2016 01:35 PM, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I want to put the pacemaker config for my two node cluster in puppet
> > but, since it is just one cluster, it seems overkill to use the corosync
> > module. If I just have puppet push cib.xml to each machine, will that
> > work? To make changes, I would just use pcs to update things and then
> > copy cib.xml back to puppet. I am not sure what happens when you change
> > cib.xml while the cluster is running. Is it safe?
>
> No, pacemaker checksums the CIB and won't accept a file that isn't
> properly signed. Also, the cluster automatically synchronizes changes
> made to the CIB across all nodes, so there is no need to push changes
> more than once.
>
> Since you're using pcs, the update process could go like this:
>
>   # Get the current configuration:
>   pcs cluster cib --config > cib-new.xml
>
>   # Make changes:
>   pcs -f cib-new.xml 
>   
>
>   # Upload the configuration changes to the cluster:
>   pcs cluster cib-push --config cib-new.xml
>
> Using "--config" is important so you only work with the configuration
> section of the CIB, and not the dynamically determined cluster
> properties and status.
>
> The first and last commands can be done on any one node, with the
> cluster running. The "pcs -f" commands can be done anywhere/anytime.
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemaker in puppet with cib.xml?

2016-07-21 Thread Ken Gaillot 
On 07/21/2016 01:35 PM, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I want to put the pacemaker config for my two node cluster in puppet
> but, since it is just one cluster, it seems overkill to use the corosync
> module. If I just have puppet push cib.xml to each machine, will that
> work? To make changes, I would just use pcs to update things and then
> copy cib.xml back to puppet. I am not sure what happens when you change
> cib.xml while the cluster is running. Is it safe?

No, pacemaker checksums the CIB and won't accept a file that isn't
properly signed. Also, the cluster automatically synchronizes changes
made to the CIB across all nodes, so there is no need to push changes
more than once.

Since you're using pcs, the update process could go like this:

  # Get the current configuration:
  pcs cluster cib --config > cib-new.xml

  # Make changes:
  pcs -f cib-new.xml 
  

  # Upload the configuration changes to the cluster:
  pcs cluster cib-push --config cib-new.xml

Using "--config" is important so you only work with the configuration
section of the CIB, and not the dynamically determined cluster
properties and status.

The first and last commands can be done on any one node, with the
cluster running. The "pcs -f" commands can be done anywhere/anytime.


___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

[ClusterLabs] Pacemaker in puppet with cib.xml?

2016-07-21 Thread Stephano-Shachter, Dylan 
Hello all,

I want to put the pacemaker config for my two node cluster in puppet but,
since it is just one cluster, it seems overkill to use the corosync module.
If I just have puppet push cib.xml to each machine, will that work? To make
changes, I would just use pcs to update things and then copy cib.xml back
to puppet. I am not sure what happens when you change cib.xml while the
cluster is running. Is it safe?

Thanks for any help,

Dylan
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org