On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:48:04 -0400 Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote: > On 2020-10-13 4:32 a.m., Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:08:39 -0400 > > Digimer <li...@alteeve.ca> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > > > > Hi you, > > > >> > >> I noticed that there appear to be a global "maintenance mode" > >> attribute under cluster_property_set. This seems to be independent of > >> node maintenance mode. It seemed to not change even when using > >> 'pcs node maintenance --all' > > > > You can set maintenance-mode using: > > > > pcs property set maintenance-mode=true > > > > You can read about "maintenance-mode" cluster attribute and "maintenance" > > node attribute in chapters: > > > > > > https://clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/2.0/html/Pacemaker_Explained/s-cluster-options.html > > > > > > https://clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/2.0/html/Pacemaker_Explained/_special_node_attributes.html > > > > I would bet the difference is that "maintenance-mode" applies to all nodes > > in one single action. Using 'pcs node maintenance --all', each pcsd daemon > > apply the local node maintenance independently. > > > > With the later, I suppose you might have some lag between nodes to actually > > start the maintenance, depending on external factors. Moreover, you can > > start/exit the maintenance mode independently on each nodes. > > Thanks for this. > > A question remains; Is it possible that: > > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-maintenance-mode" > name="maintenance-mode" value="false"/> > > Could be set, and a given node could be: > > <node id="1" uname="mk-a02n01"> > <instance_attributes id="nodes-1"> > <nvpair id="nodes-1-maintenance" name="maintenance" value="off"/> > </instance_attributes> > </node> > > That is to say; If the cluster is set to maintenance mode, does that > mean I should consider all nodes to also be in maintenance mode, > regardless of what their individual maintenance mode might be set to?
I remember a similar discussion happening some months ago. I believe Ken answered your question there: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/2019-November/002242.html The whole answer is informative, but the conclusion might answer your question: >> There is some room for coming up with better option naming and meaning. For >> example maybe the cluster-wide "maintenance-mode" should be something >> like "force-maintenance" to make clear it takes precedence over node and >> resource maintenance. I understand here that "maintenance-mode" takes precedence over individual node maintenance mode. Regards, _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/