<div dir="ltr">Hi Andreas,<div><br></div><div>The problem is the network is out of my control. All the nodes are virtual machines over some VMWare ESX.</div><div>We have two different networks, one for the service, and the other for the cluster.</div>
<div>One idea is to create a second ring in the service network, but networks are virtualized, so maybe the problem persists.</div><div><br></div><div>And of course, we don't have stonith. It is the same problem, I have no control over the VMWare hosts, and seems that they have to pay an extra to use the API needed by the stonith plugin.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Meanwhile, I try to find </div><div><br></div><div>Probably this two problems will be fixed in a couple of months, but meanwhile I have try to maintain the cluster up :)</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div>
<div>Adrián</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Andreas Mock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andreas.mock@web.de" target="_blank">andreas.mock@web.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="DE" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">Hi Adrián,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">IMHO the effort would focus on the wrong issue.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">Make your network for clustering reliable. It is THE building block<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">of a cluster besides the nodes.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">- Additional network cards<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">- Different vendor<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">- Bonding<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">- Different path through switches<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">On a two-node-cluster without the necessary option to<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">increase the number of nodes I almost always take a crosscable<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">for one of the interconnects.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">Best regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">Andreas Mock<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">P.S. The story sounds to me that you also don't have stonith<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d">enabled. Another building block IMHO.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Von:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Adrián López Tejedor [mailto:<a href="mailto:adrianlzt@gmail.com" target="_blank">adrianlzt@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 12. August 2013 16:26<br><b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org" target="_blank">pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> [Pacemaker] New action for resource running in multiple nodes<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Hi!</span><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">In the environment we use corosync/pacemaker, recently we are having some problems with the network used to maintain the cluster. This short interruptions cause the passive node (we have a two node active-passive configuration with apache tomcat) to think he is alone, and start another instance of tomcat. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Few seconds later, the cluster reconnects, and the resource is found active in both nodes. The default behaviour (as seen in <a href="http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.0/html/Pacemaker_Explained/s-resource-options.html" title="http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.0/html/Pacemaker_Explained/s-resource-options.html
Ctrl+clic para seguir el vínculo" target="_blank">http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.0/html/Pacemaker_Explained/s-resource-options.html</a>) is to stop both, and start one of them.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">For us, this implies that service is down everytime a short interruption in the network occurs.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Maybe a new option for "multiple-active" like "stop_old" and/or "stop_new" could be useful, stopping only the newest instance of the resource.</span><span style><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Thanks!</span><span style><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Adrián</span><span style><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Pacemaker mailing list: <a href="mailto:Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org">Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
<a href="http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker" target="_blank">http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker</a><br>
<br>
Project Home: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
Getting started: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf</a><br>
Bugs: <a href="http://bugs.clusterlabs.org" target="_blank">http://bugs.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>