[Pacemaker] bug in ordering syntax?

[Frank DiMeo]

I'm experimenting with startup sequence and co-location control, and think I may have stumbled across a bug.

 

I have two xml files that I use in my testing as my initial configuration of a two node cluster.  I start each node with no configuration, and then use cibadmin to "source in" the xml file.  Each file defines two resources as well as a startup order and collocation definition.  The only difference between the two files is the syntax I use to specify the startup order.

 

When I use the syntax:

 

<rsc_order id="order-1" first="world1" then="world2" score="INFINITY" />

 

Everything works fine.  I can put either of the two nodes into standby while resources are running there, and the resources move to the other node as expected.

 

However, when I use the syntax:

 

- <<rsc_order id="order-1">

- <  <resource_set id="order-1-set-1" sequential="true">

  <            <resource_ref id="world1" /> 

  <            <resource_ref id="world2" /> 

  </resource_set>

 </rsc_order>

 

 

Several bad things happen.  First, the resources don't move off the node that is put into standby, even though the alternate node is running and able to run the resources.  Second, attempting to shut down openais on the node running the resources after attempting a forced move (by putting the node into standby) leaves both the lrmd and pengine processes running (but children of process 1 (init), and the resources continue to run on the that node even after openais is stopped.

 

I turned debug on in crmd and in the logs and recorded what happens when I force standby, and I notice that using the first syntax causes te_rsc_command to be executed to send a shut down message to the node where the resources are running (which seems to work), while using the second syntax causes te_pseudo_action to be called in approximately the same place in the log, but no shutdown of resources happens (I can't really tell what this is supposed to be doing).

 

Has anyone else noticed this behavior?  Is this a bug, or am I misusing this compact syntax somehow?

 

-Frank

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20091130/fa3a9b69/attachment.html>