I doubt if you can use 4.3.8 nodes with a 4.2 cluster without upgrading it
first. But myabe members of this list could say differently.

On Friday, February 7, 2020, Jorick Astrego <jor...@netbulae.eu> wrote:

>
> On 2/6/20 6:22 PM, Amit Bawer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jorick Astrego <jor...@netbulae.eu> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2/6/20 1:44 PM, Amit Bawer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:07 PM Jorick Astrego <jor...@netbulae.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> Here you go, this is from the activation I just did a couple of minutes
>>> ago.
>>>
>> I was hoping to see how it was first connected to host, but it doesn't go
>> that far back. Anyway, the storage domain type is set from engine and vdsm
>> never try to guess it as far as I saw.
>>
>> I put the host in maintenance and activated it again, this should give
>> you some more info. See attached log.
>>
>> Could you query the engine db about the misbehaving domain and paste the
>> results?
>>
>> # su - postgres
>> Last login: Thu Feb  6 07:17:52 EST 2020 on pts/0
>> -bash-4.2$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/rh/rh-postgresql10/root/lib64/
>> /opt/rh/rh-postgresql10/root/usr/bin/psql engine
>> psql (10.6)
>> Type "help" for help.
>> engine=# select * from storage_domain_static where id = '
>> f5d2f7c6-093f-46d6-a844-224d92db5ef9' ;
>>
>>
>> engine=# select * from storage_domain_static where id =
>> 'f5d2f7c6-093f-46d6-a844-224d92db5ef9' ;
>>                   id                  |
>> storage                | storage_name | storage_domain_type | storage_type
>> | storage_domain_format_type |         _create_date          |
>> _update_date         | recoverable | la
>> st_time_used_as_master | storage_description | storage_comment |
>> wipe_after_delete | warning_low_space_indicator |
>> critical_space_action_blocker | first_metadata_device | vg_metadata_device
>> | discard_after_delete | backup | warning_low_co
>> nfirmed_space_indicator | block_size
>> --------------------------------------+---------------------
>> -----------------+--------------+---------------------+-----
>> ---------+----------------------------+---------------------
>> ----------+-----------------------------+-------------+---
>> -----------------------+---------------------+--------------
>> ---+-------------------+-----------------------------+------
>> -------------------------+-----------------------+----------
>> ----------+----------------------+--------+---------------
>> ------------------------+------------
>>  f5d2f7c6-093f-46d6-a844-224d92db5ef9 | b8b456f0-27c3-49b9-b5e9-9fa81fb3cdaa
>> | backupnfs    |                   1 |            1 |
>> 4                          | 2018-01-19 13:31:25.899738+01 | 2019-02-14
>> 14:36:22.3171+01 | t           |
>>          1530772724454 |                     |                 |
>> f                 |                          10
>> |                             5 |
>> |                    | f                    | f      |
>>                       0 |        512
>> (1 row)
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks for sharing,
>
> The storage_type in db is indeed NFS (1), storage_domain_format_type is 4
> - for ovirt 4.3 the storage_domain_format_type is 5 by default and usually
> datacenter upgrade is required for 4.2 to 4.3 migration, which not sure if
> possible in your current setup since you have 4.2 nodes using this storage
> as well.
>
> Regarding the repeating monitor failure for the SD:
>
> 2020-02-05 14:17:54,190+0000 WARN  (monitor/f5d2f7c) [storage.LVM]
> Reloading VGs failed (vgs=[u'f5d2f7c6-093f-46d6-a844-224d92db5ef9'] rc=5
> out=[] err=['  Volume group "f5d2f7c6-093f-46d6-a844-224d92db5ef9" not
> found', '  Cannot process volume group f5d2f7c6-093f-46d6-a844-224d92db5ef9'])
> (lvm:470)
>
> This error means that the monitor has tried to query the SD as a VG first
> and failed, this is expected for the fallback code called for finding a
> domain missing from SD cache:
>
> def _findUnfetchedDomain(self, sdUUID):
> ...
> for mod in (blockSD, glusterSD, localFsSD, nfsSD):
> try:
> return mod.findDomain(sdUUID)
> except se.StorageDomainDoesNotExist:
> pass
> except Exception:
> self.log.error(
> "Error while looking for domain `%s`",
> sdUUID, exc_info=True)
> raise se.StorageDomainDoesNotExist(sdUUID)
>
> 2020-02-05 14:17:54,201+0000 ERROR (monitor/f5d2f7c) [storage.Monitor]
> Setting up monitor for f5d2f7c6-093f-46d6-a844-224d92db5ef9 failed
> (monitor:330)
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/storage/monitor.py", line
> 327, in _setupLoop
>     self._setupMonitor()
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/storage/monitor.py", line
> 349, in _setupMonitor
>     self._produceDomain()
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/utils.py", line 159, in
> wrapper
>     value = meth(self, *a, **kw)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/storage/monitor.py", line
> 367, in _produceDomain
>     self.domain = sdCache.produce(self.sdUUID)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/storage/sdc.py", line 110,
> in produce
>     domain.getRealDomain()
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/storage/sdc.py", line 51,
> in getRealDomain
>     return self._cache._realProduce(self._sdUUID)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/storage/sdc.py", line 134,
> in _realProduce
>     domain = self._findDomain(sdUUID)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/storage/sdc.py", line 151,
> in _findDomain
>     return findMethod(sdUUID)
>   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/storage/sdc.py", line 176,
> in _findUnfetchedDomain
>     raise se.StorageDomainDoesNotExist(sdUUID)
> StorageDomainDoesNotExist: Storage domain does not exist:
> (u'f5d2f7c6-093f-46d6-a844-224d92db5ef9',)
>
> This error part means it failed to query the domain for any possible type,
> either for NFS.
>
> Are you able to create a new NFS storage domain on the same storage server
> (but on another export path not to harm the existing one)?
> If you do succeed to connect to it from the 4.3 datacenter, it could mean
> the v4 format is an issue;
> otherwise it could mean there is an issue with a different NFS settings
> required for 4.3.
>
>
> Well this will be a problem either way, when I add a new NFS it will not
> be storage_domain_format_type 5 as the DC is still on 4.2.
>
> Also when I do add a type 5 nfs domain, the 4.2 nodes will try to mount
> it, fail and then become non-responsive taking the whole running cluster
> down?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jorick Astrego
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Met vriendelijke groet, With kind regards,
>
> Jorick Astrego
>
> *Netbulae Virtualization Experts *
> ------------------------------
> Tel: 053 20 30 270 i...@netbulae.eu Staalsteden 4-3A
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Staalsteden+4-3A?entry=gmail&source=g> KvK
> 08198180
> Fax: 053 20 30 271 www.netbulae.eu 7547 TA Enschede BTW NL821234584B01
> ------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list -- users@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@ovirt.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/
oVirt Code of Conduct: 
https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
List Archives: 
https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/users@ovirt.org/message/UYRPNMTCCWUSJYEZIBMSVNFLKCZDSHMB/

Reply via email to