[ClusterLabs] issue during Pacemaker failover testing

[Andrei Borzenkov]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 2:18 PM Klaus Wenninger <kwenning at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 12:45 PM David Dolan <daithidolan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Klaus,
>>
>> With default quorum options I've performed the following on my 3 node cluster
>>
>> Bring down cluster services on one node - the running services migrate to another node
>> Wait 3 minutes
>> Bring down cluster services on one of the two remaining nodes - the surviving node in the cluster is then fenced
>>
>> Instead of the surviving node being fenced, I hoped that the services would migrate and run on that remaining node.
>>
>> Just looking for confirmation that my understanding is ok and if I'm missing something?
>
>
> As said I've never used it ...
> Well when down to 2 nodes LMS per definition is getting into trouble as after another
> outage any of them is gonna be alone. In case of an ordered shutdown this could
> possibly be circumvented though. So I guess your fist attempt to enable auto-tie-breaker
> was the right idea. Like this you will have further service at least on one of the nodes.
> So I guess what you were seeing is the right - and unfortunately only possible - behavior.

I still do not see where fencing comes from. Pacemaker requests
fencing of the missing nodes. It also may request self-fencing, but
not in the default settings. It is rather hard to tell what happens
without logs from the last remaining node.

That said, the default action is to stop all resources, so the end
result is not very different :)