On 4/3/19 6:10 PM, Rohit Saini wrote:
Hi Ondrej,
Please find my reply below:
1.
*Stonith configuration:*
[root@orana ~]# pcs config
Resource: fence-uc-orana (class=stonith type=fence_ilo4)
Attributes: delay=0 ipaddr=fd00:1061:37:9002:: lanplus=1 login=xyz
passwd=xyz pcmk_host_list=orana pcmk_reboot_action=off
Meta Attrs: failure-timeout=3s
Operations: monitor interval=5s on-fail=ignore
(fence-uc-orana-monitor-interval-5s)
start interval=0s on-fail=restart
(fence-uc-orana-start-interval-0s)
Resource: fence-uc-tigana (class=stonith type=fence_ilo4)
Attributes: delay=10 ipaddr=fd00:1061:37:9001:: lanplus=1 login=xyz
passwd=xyz pcmk_host_list=tigana pcmk_reboot_action=off
Meta Attrs: failure-timeout=3s
Operations: monitor interval=5s on-fail=ignore
(fence-uc-tigana-monitor-interval-5s)
start interval=0s on-fail=restart
(fence-uc-tigana-start-interval-0s)
Fencing Levels:
Location Constraints:
Ordering Constraints:
start fence-uc-orana then promote unicloud-master (kind:Mandatory)
start fence-uc-tigana then promote unicloud-master (kind:Mandatory)
Colocation Constraints:
fence-uc-orana with unicloud-master (score:INFINITY)
(rsc-role:Started) (with-rsc-role:Master)
fence-uc-tigana with unicloud-master (score:INFINITY)
(rsc-role:Started) (with-rsc-role:Master)
2. This is seen randomly. Since I am using colocation, stonith resources
are stopped and started on new master. That time, starting of stonith is
taking variable amount of time.
No other IPv6 issues are seen in the cluster nodes.
3. fence_agent version
[root@orana ~]# rpm -qa|grep fence-agents-ipmilan
fence-agents-ipmilan-4.0.11-66.el7.x86_64
*NOTE:*
Both IPv4 and IPv6 are configured on my ILO, with "iLO Client
Applications use IPv6 first" turned on.
Attaching corosync logs also.
Thanks, increasing timeout to 60 worked. But thats not what exactly I am
looking for. I need to know exact reason behind delay of starting these
IPv6 stonith resources.
Regards,
Rohit
Hi Rohit,
Thank you for response.
From configuration it is clear that we are using directly IP addresses
so the DNS resolution issue can be rules out. There are no messages from
fence_ilo4 that would indicate reason why it timed out. So we cannot
tell yet what caused the issue. I see that you have enabled
PCMK_debug=stonith-ng most probably (or PCMK_debug=yes),
It is nice that increased the timeout worked, but as said in previous
email it may just mask the real reason why it takes longer to do
monitor/start operation.
> Both IPv4 and IPv6 are configured on my ILO, with "iLO Client
> Applications use IPv6 first" turned on.
This seems to me to be more related to SNMP communication which we don't
use with fence_ilo4 as far as I know. We use the ipmitool on port 623/udp.
https://support.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-a00026111en_us&docLocale=en_US#N104B2
> 2. This is seen randomly. Since I am using colocation, stonith resources
> are stopped and started on new master. That time, starting of stonith is
> taking variable amount of time.
This is a good observation. Which leads me to question if the iLO has
set any kind of session limits for the user that is used here. If there
is any session limit it may be worth trying to increase it and test if
the same delay can be observed. One situation when this can happen is
that when one node communicates with iLO and during that time the
communication from other node needs to happen while the limit is 1
connection. The relocation of resource from one note to another might
fit this, but this is just speculation and fastest way to prove/reject
it would be to increase limit, if there is one, and test it.
# What more can be done to figure out on what is causing delay?
1. The fence_ilo4 can be configured with attribute 'verbose=1' to print
additional information when it is run. These data looks similar to ones
below and they seems to provide the timestamps which is great as we
should be able to see when what command was run. I don't have a testing
machine on which to run fence_ilo4 so the below example just shows how
it looks when it fails on timeout connecting.
Apr 03 12:34:11 [4025] fastvm-centos-7-6-31 stonith-ng: notice:
stonith_action_async_done: Child process 4252 performing action
'monitor' timed out with signal 15
Apr 03 12:34:11 [4025] fastvm-centos-7-6-31 stonith-ng: warning:
log_action: fence_ilo4[4252] stderr: [ 2019-04-03 12:33:51,193 INFO:
Executing: /usr/bin/ipmitool -I lanplus -H fe80::f6bd:8a67:7eb5:214f -p
623 -U xyz -P [set] -L ADMINISTRATOR chassis power status ]
Apr 03 12:34:11 [4025] fastvm-centos-7-6-31 stonith-ng: warning:
log_action: fence_ilo4[4252] stderr: [ ]
# pcs stonith update fence-uc-orana verbose=1
Note: That above shows that some private data are included in logs, so
in case that you have there something interesting for sharing make sure
to strip out the sensitive data.
2. The version of fence-agents-ipmilan is not the latest when comparing
that to my CentOS 7.6 system
(fence-agents-ipmilan-4.2.1-11.el7_6.7.x86_64) so you may consider to
try upgrading the package and see if the latest provided in your
distribution helps by any way if that is possible.
3. You may check if there is any update for the iLO devices and see if
the updated version exhibits the same behavior with timeouts. From logs
I cannot tell what version or device the fence_ilo4 is communicating with.
4. If there is more reliable way for triggering way triggering the
situation when the timeout with default 20s is observed you can setup
network packet capture with tcpdump to see what kind of communication is
happening during that time. This can help to establish the idea if there
is any response from the iLO device while we wait which would indicate
the iLO or network to be issue or if the data arrives fast and the
fence_ilo4 doesn't do anything.
- In first case that would point more to network or iLO communication issue
- In second case that would be more likely issue with fence_ilo4 or
ipmitool that is used for communication
NOTE: In case that you happen to have a subscription for your systems
you can try also reaching technical support to look deeper on collected
data. That way you can save time figuring out how to strip the private
parts from data before sharing them here.
========================================================================
--
Ondrej
_______________________________________________
Manage your subscription:
https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
