> On 16 Sep 2016, at 16:02, aleksey.maksi...@it-kb.ru wrote: > > So, colleagues. > I again tested the Fencing and now I think that my host-server power-button > (physically or through ILO) sends a KILL-command to the host OS (and as a > result to VM)
thanks for confirmation, then it is indeed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341106 I’m not sure if there is any good workaround. You can always reconfigure(disable) ACPI in the guest, then HA logic would work ok but it also means there is no graceful shutdown and your VM would be killed uncleanly. > This journald log in my guest OS when I press the power-button on the host: > > .. > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Stopping ACPI event daemon... > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Stopping User Manager for UID > 1000... > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Starting Unattended Upgrades > Shutdown... > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 snapd[2583]: 2016/09/16 16:19:27.289063 > main.go:67: Exiting on terminated signal. > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 sshd[2940]: pam_unix(sshd:session): session > closed for user user > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 su[3015]: pam_unix(su:session): session closed > for user root > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 spice-vdagentd[2638]: vdagentd quiting, > returning status 0 > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 sudo[3014]: pam_unix(sudo:session): session > closed for user root > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 /usr/lib/snapd/snapd[2583]: main.go:67: > Exiting on terminated signal. > Sep 16 16:19:27 KOM-AD01-PBX02 sshd[2812]: Received signal 15; terminating. > .. > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Reached target Unmount All > Filesystems. > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Stopped target Local File Systems > (Pre). > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Stopping Monitoring of LVM2 > mirrors, snapshots etc. using dmeventd or progress polling... > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Stopped Remount Root and Kernel > File Systems. > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Stopped Create Static Device Nodes > in /dev. > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Reached target Shutdown. > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Reached target Final Step. > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Starting Reboot... > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Stopped Monitoring of LVM2 > mirrors, snapshots etc. using dmeventd or progress polling. > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd[1]: Shutting down. > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 kernel: [drm:qxl_enc_commit [qxl]] *ERROR* > head number too large or missing monitors config: ffffc9000084a000, > 0systemd-shutdown[1]: Sending SIGTERM to remaining processes... > Sep 16 16:19:28 KOM-AD01-PBX02 systemd-journald[3342]: Journal stopped > -- Reboot -- > > Perhaps this feature of HP ProLiant DL 360 G5. I dont know. > > If I test the unavailability of a host other ways that everything is going > well. > > I described my experience testing Fencing on practical examples on my blog > for everyone in Russian. > https://blog.it-kb.ru/2016/09/16/install-ovirt-4-0-part-4-about-ssh-soft-fencing-and-hard-fencing-over-hp-proliant-ilo2-power-managment-agent-and-test-of-high-availability/ > > > Thank you all very much for your participation and support. > > Michal, what kind of scenario are you talking about? > > > PS: Excuse me for my bad English :) > > > 16.09.2016, 16:37, "Simone Tiraboschi" <stira...@redhat.com>: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Michal Skrivanek >> <michal.skriva...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On 16 Sep 2016, at 15:31, aleksey.maksi...@it-kb.ru wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Simone. >>>> Exactly. >>>> Now I'll put the journald on the guest and try to understand how the guest >>>> off. >>> >>> great. thanks >>> >>>> 16.09.2016, 16:25, "Simone Tiraboschi" <stira...@redhat.com>: >>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Michal Skrivanek >>>>> <michal.skriva...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 16 Sep 2016, at 15:05, Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cec...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Michal Skrivanek >>>>>>> <michal.skriva...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> no, that’s not how HA works today. When you log into a guest and issue >>>>>>>> “shutdown” we do not restart the VM under your hands. We can argue how >>>>>>>> it should or may work, but this is the defined behavior since the dawn >>>>>>>> of oVirt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> AFAIK that's correct, we need to be able >>>>>>>>> shutdown HA VM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> without being it immediately restarted on different host. We want >>>>>>>>> to restart HA VM only if host, where HA VM is running, is >>>>>>>>> non-responsive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we try to restart it in all other cases other than user initiated >>>>>>>> shutdown, e.g. a QEMU process crash on an otherwise-healthy host >>>>>>> Hi, just another question in case HA is not configured at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> by “HA configured” I expect you’re referring to the “Highly Available” >>>>>> checkbox in Edit VM dialog. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If I run the "shutdown -h now" command on an host where some VMs are >>>>>>> running, what is the expected behavior? >>>>>>> Clean VM shutdown (with or without timeout in case it doesn't >>>>>>> complete?) or crash of their related QEMU processes? >>>>>> >>>>>> expectation is that you won’t do that. That’s why there is the >>>>>> Maintenance host state. >>>>>> But if you do that regardless, with VMs running, all the processes will >>>>>> be terminated in a regular system way, i.e. all QEMU processes get >>>>>> SIGTERM. From the perspective of each guest this is not a clean shutdown >>>>>> and it would just get killed >>>>> >>>>> Aleksey is reporting that he started a shutdown on his host by power >>>>> management and the VM processes didn't get roughly killed but smoothly >>>>> shut down and so they didn't restarted regardless of their HA flag and so >>>>> this thread. >>> >>> Gianluca talks about “shutdown -h now”, you talk about power management >>> action, those are two different things. The current idea is that systemd or >>> some other component just propagates the action to the guest and if that >>> guest is configured to handle it as a shutdown it starts it itself as well >>> so it looks like a user-initiated one. Even though this mostly makes sense >>> it is not ok for current HA logic >> >> Aleksey, can you please also test this scenario? >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> michal >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Gianluca >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Users mailing list >>>>>>> Users@ovirt.org >>>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Users mailing list >>>>>> Users@ovirt.org >>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Users mailing list >>>> Users@ovirt.org >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
