On 2020-10-13 5:41 a.m., Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > 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,
Very helpful, thank you kindly! -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com/w/ "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
