Dne 4.12.2017 v 14:21 Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais napsal(a):
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:31:06 +0100
Tomas Jelinek <tojel...@redhat.com> wrote:
Dne 4.12.2017 v 10:36 Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais napsal(a):
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 16:34:08 -0600
Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 07:55 +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote:
Kristoffer Gronlund <kgronl...@suse.com> wrote:
Adam Spiers <aspi...@suse.com> writes:
- The whole cluster is shut down cleanly.
- The whole cluster is then started up again. (Side question:
what
happens if the last node to shut down is not the first to
start up?
How will the cluster ensure it has the most recent version of
the
CIB? Without that, how would it know whether the last man
standing
was shut down cleanly or not?)
This is my opinion, I don't really know what the "official"
pacemaker
stance is: There is no such thing as shutting down a cluster
cleanly. A
cluster is a process stretching over multiple nodes - if they all
shut
down, the process is gone. When you start up again, you
effectively have
a completely new cluster.
Sorry, I don't follow you at all here. When you start the cluster
up
again, the cluster config from before the shutdown is still there.
That's very far from being a completely new cluster :-)
The problem is you cannot "start the cluster" in pacemaker; you can
only "start nodes". The nodes will come up one by one. As opposed (as
I had said) to HP Sertvice Guard, where there is a "cluster formation
timeout". That is, the nodes wait for the specified time for the
cluster to "form". Then the cluster starts as a whole. Of course that
only applies if the whole cluster was down, not if a single node was
down.
I'm not sure what that would specifically entail, but I'm guessing we
have some of the pieces already:
- Corosync has a wait_for_all option if you want the cluster to be
unable to have quorum at start-up until every node has joined. I don't
think you can set a timeout that cancels it, though.
- Pacemaker will wait dc-deadtime for the first DC election to
complete. (if I understand it correctly ...)
- Higher-level tools can start or stop all nodes together (e.g. pcs has
pcs cluster start/stop --all).
Based on this discussion, I have some questions about pcs:
* how is it shutting down the cluster when issuing "pcs cluster stop
--all"?
First, it sends a request to each node to stop pacemaker. The requests
are sent in parallel which prevents resources from being moved from node
to node. Once pacemaker stops on all nodes, corosync is stopped on all
nodes in the same manner.
What if for some external reasons one node is slower (load, network, whatever)
than the others and start reacting ? Sending queries in parallel doesn't
feels safe enough in regard with all the race conditions that can occurs in the
same time.
Am I missing something ?
If a node gets the request later than others, some resources may be
moved to it before it starts shutting down pacemaker as well. Pcs waits
for all nodes to shutdown pacemaker before it moves to shutting down
corosync. This way, quorum is maintained the whole time pacemaker is
shutting down and therefore no services are blocked from stopping due to
lack of quorum.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.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
