[Pacemaker] [Problem]The problem of the combination of Pacemaker and corosync1.2.7.

Tue Aug 3 20:55:22 EDT 2010

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for comment.

> No need to wait, the current tip of Pacemaker 1.1 is perfectly stable
> (and included for RHEL6.0).
> Almost all the testing has been done for 1.1.3, I've just been busy
> helping out with some other projects at Red Hat and haven't had time
> to do the actual release.
> 
> To make use of CPG-based communication, remove the "service" section
> for pacemaker from corosync.conf and instead run:
>    service pacemaker start
> after starting corosync.
> 
> Once the 1.1.3 packages are out, this will be the official advice for
> anyone experiencing startup/shutdown issues when using Pacemaker with
> Corosync.
> Calling fork() in a multi-threaded environment (corosync) is just far
> too problematic.

All right.

My problem of all may be broken off with 1.1.3.
I try Pacemaker1.1.3 from now on.

What time does the release of Pacemaker1.1 seem to become it?

Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.

--- Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:17 AM,  <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I confirmed movement when corosync1.2.7 combined Pacemaker.
> >
> > The combination is as follows.
> >
> > �* corosync 1.2.7
> > �* Pacemaker-1-0-74392a28b7f3.tar
> > �* Cluster-Resource-Agents-bfcc4e050a07.tar
> > �* Reusable-Cluster-Components-8286b46c91e3.tar
> >
> >
> > I confirmed the next movement in two nodes of a virtual machine(RHEL5.5 x84) and the real
> > machine(RHEL5.5 x64).
> > The resource arranged nothing.
> >
> > 1) When it started only in corosync, a node do not be hung up.(and when stopped)
> > 2) When I put Pacemaker and corosync together and started, a node do not be hung up.(and when
> stopped)
> >
> > Only 20 number of times carried out the confirmation in each environment.(x86 and x64)
> >
> > Unfortunately the following problem occurred.
> > �* The problem did not happen by the start only for corosync this time.(and when stopped)
> >
> > Problem 1) By the start of the virtual machine, a virtual machine is sometimes hungup.
> > � � � � � Like a former problem, it is used nearly 100% for the
CPU.
> >
> > Problem 2) There was the case that cannot constitute a cluster after start.
> >
> > Problem 3) There is a case to fail in the start of a cib process and the attrd process.
> >
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g attrd: [26258]: ERROR: ais_dispatch: Receiving message body failed: (2)
> Library
> > error: Resource temporarily unavailable (11)
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g attrd: [26258]: ERROR: ais_dispatch: AIS connection failed
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g cib: [26256]: ERROR: ais_dispatch: Receiving message body failed: (2)
> Library
> > error: Resource temporarily unavailable (11)
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g cib: [26256]: ERROR: ais_dispatch: AIS connection failed
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g attrd: [26258]: CRIT: attrd_ais_destroy: Lost connection to OpenAIS
> service!
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g cib: [26256]: ERROR: cib_ais_destroy: AIS connection terminated
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g attrd: [26258]: info: main: Exiting...
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g attrd: [26258]: ERROR: attrd_cib_connection_destroy: Connection to the
> CIB
> > terminated...
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g stonithd: [26255]: ERROR: ais_dispatch: Receiving message body failed:
> (2)
> > Library error: Success (0)
> > Jul 30 14:25:46 x3650g stonithd: [26255]: ERROR: ais_dispatch
> >
> > Can this problem be settled in Pacemaker1.0 and corosync1.2.7?
> >
> > I know that a revision to replace communication with CPG in structure of new Pacemaker begins.
> > When we combine corosync and use it, should we wait for a revision of CPG to be over?
> > (Should we wait for Pacemaker1.1 system?)
> 
> No need to wait, the current tip of Pacemaker 1.1 is perfectly stable
> (and included for RHEL6.0).
> Almost all the testing has been done for 1.1.3, I've just been busy
> helping out with some other projects at Red Hat and haven't had time
> to do the actual release.
> 
> To make use of CPG-based communication, remove the "service" section
> for pacemaker from corosync.conf and instead run:
>    service pacemaker start
> after starting corosync.
> 
> Once the 1.1.3 packages are out, this will be the official advice for
> anyone experiencing startup/shutdown issues when using Pacemaker with
> Corosync.
> Calling fork() in a multi-threaded environment (corosync) is just far
> too problematic.
> 
> >
> > Because log is big, I contact it again after registering this problem with bugzilla.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hideo Yamauchi.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> >
> > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> > Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> 
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
> 