[ClusterLabs] [corosync] Virtual Synchrony Property guarantees in case of network partition

Mon Jun 6 08:08:51 EDT 2016

But C1 is *guaranteed *to deliver *before *m(k)? No case where C1 is
delivered after m(k)?

Regards,
Satish

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Jan Friesse <jfriesse at redhat.com> wrote:

> satish kumar napsal(a):
>
> Hello honza, thanks for the response !
>>
>> With state sync, I simply mean that 'k-1' messages were delivered to N1,
>> N2
>> and N3 and they have applied these messages to change their program state.
>> N1.state = apply(m(k-1);
>> N2.state = apply(m(k-1);
>> N3.state = apply(m(k-1);
>>
>> The document you shared cleared many doubts. However I still need one
>> clarification.
>>
>> According to the document:
>> "The configuration change messages warn the application that a membership
>> change has occurred, so that the application program can take appropriate
>> action based on the membership change. Extended virtual synchrony
>> guarantees a consistent order of messages delivery across a partition,
>> which is essential if the application program are to be able to reconcile
>> their states following repair of a failed processor or reemerging of the
>> partitioned network."
>>
>> I just want to know that this property is not something related to
>> CPG_TYPE_SAFE, which is still not implemented.
>> Please consider this scenario:
>> 0. N1, N2 and N3 has received the message m(k-1).
>> 1. N1 mcast(CPG_TYPE_AGREED) m(k) message.
>> 2. As it is not CPG_TYPE_SAFE, m(k) delievered to N1 but was not yet
>> delivered to N2 and N3.
>> 3. Network partition separate N1 from N2 and N3. N2 and N3 can never see
>> m(k).
>> 4. Configuration change message is now delivered to N1, N2 and N3.
>>
>> Here, N1 will change its state to N1.state = apply(m(k), thinking all in
>> the current configuration has received the message.
>>
>> According to your reply it looks like N1 will not receive m(k). So this is
>> what each node will see:
>> N1 will see: m(k-1) -> C1 (config change)
>> N2 will see: m(k-1) -> C1 (config change)
>> N3 will see: m(k-1) -> C1 (config change)
>>
>
> For N2 and N3, it's not same C1. So let's call it C2. Because C1 for N1 is
> (N2 and N3 left) and C2 for N2 and N3 is (N1 left).
>
>
>
>> Message m(k) will be discarded, and will not be delivered to N1 even if it
>> was sent by N1 before the network partition.
>>
>
> No. m(k) will be delivered to app running on N1. So N1 will see m(k-1),
> C1, m(k). So application exactly knows which node got message m(k).
>
> Regards,
>   Honza
>
>
>
>> This is the expected behavior with CPG_TYPE_AGREED?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Satish
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jan Friesse <jfriesse at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Virtual Synchrony Property - messages are delivered in agreed order and
>>>> configuration changes are delivered in agreed order relative to message.
>>>>
>>>> What happen to this property when network is partitioned the cluster
>>>> into
>>>> two. Consider following scenario (which I took from one of the
>>>> previous query by Andrei Elkin):
>>>>
>>>> * N1, N2 and N3 are in state sync with m(k-1) messages are delivered.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What exactly you mean by "state sync"?
>>>
>>> * N1 sends m(k) and just now network partition N1 node from N2 and N3.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does CPG_TYPE_AGREED guarantee that virtual synchrony is held?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes it does (actually higher level of VS called EVS)
>>>
>>>
>>> When property is held, configuration change message C1 is guaranteed to
>>>> delivered before m(k) to N1.
>>>> N1 will see: m(k-1) C1 m(k)
>>>> N2 and N3 will see: m(k-1) C1
>>>>
>>>> But if this property is violated:
>>>> N1 will see: m(k-1) m(k) C1
>>>> N2 and N3 will see: m(k-1) C1
>>>>
>>>> Violation will screw any user application running on the cluster.
>>>>
>>>> Could someone please explain what is the behavior of Corosync in this
>>>> scenario with CPG_TYPE_AGREED ordering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> For description how exactly totem synchronization works take a look to
>>> http://corosync.github.com/corosync/doc/DAAgarwal.thesis.ps.gz
>>>
>>> After totem is synchronized, there is another level of synchronization of
>>> services (not described in above doc). All services synchronize in very
>>> similar way, so you can take a look to CPG as example. Basically only
>>> state
>>> held by CPG is connected clients. So every node sends it's connected
>>> clients list to every other node. If sync is aborted (change of
>>> membership), it's restarted. These sync messages has priority over user
>>> messages (actually it's not possible to send messages during sync). User
>>> app can be sure that message was delivered only after it gets it's own
>>> message. Also app gets configuration change message so it knows, who got
>>> the message.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>    Honza
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>> Satish
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
>>>> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>
>>>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>>>> Getting started:
>>>> http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>>>> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
>>> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>>> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>>> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
>> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20160606/d5d152e6/attachment-0003.html>