[Pacemaker] catch-22: can't fence node A because node A has the fencing resource

Brian J. Murrell brian at interlinx.bc.ca
Tue Dec 3 19:47:41 EST 2013

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 18:26 -0500, David Vossel wrote: 
> We did away with all of the policy engine logic involved with trying to move fencing devices off of the target node before executing the fencing action. Behind the scenes all fencing devices are now essentially clones.  If the target node to be fenced has a fencing device running on it, that device can execute anywhere in the cluster to avoid the "suicide" situation.


> When you are looking at crm_mon output and see a fencing device is running on a specific node, all that really means is that we are going to attempt to execute fencing actions for that device from that node first. If that node is unavailable,

Would it be better to not even try to use a node and ask it to commit
suicide but always try to use another node?

> we'll try that same device anywhere in the cluster we can get it to work


> (unless you've specifically built some location constraint that prevents the fencing device from ever running on a specific node)

While I do have constraints on the more service-oriented resources to
give them preferred nodes, I don't have any constraints on the fencing

So given all of the above, and given the log I supplied showing that the
fencing was just not being attempted anywhere other than the node to be
fenced (which was down during that log) any clues as to where to look
for why?

> Hope that helps.

It explains the differences, but unfortunately I'm still not sure why it
wouldn't get run somewhere else, eventually, rather than continually
being attempted on the node to be killed (which as I mentioned, was shut
down at the time the log was made).


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20131203/f65fc64b/attachment-0003.sig>

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list