[ClusterLabs] RFC: allowing soft recovery attempts before ignore/block/etc.
abeekhof at redhat.com
Wed Sep 21 02:51:40 CEST 2016
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> Currently, Pacemaker's on-fail property allows you to configure how the
> cluster reacts to operation failures. The default "restart" means try to
> restart on the same node, optionally moving to another node once
> migration-threshold is reached. Other possibilities are "ignore",
> "block", "stop", "fence", and "standby".
> Occasionally, we get requests to have something like migration-threshold
> for values besides restart. For example, try restarting the resource on
> the same node 3 times, then fence.
> I'd like to get your feedback on two alternative approaches we're
> Our first proposed approach would add a new hard-fail-threshold
> operation property. If specified, the cluster would first try restarting
> the resource on the same node,
Well, just as now, it would be _allowed_ to start on the same node, but
this is not guaranteed.
> before doing the on-fail handling.
> For example, you could configure a promote operation with
> hard-fail-threshold=3 and on-fail=fence, to fence the node after 3
> One point that's not settled is whether failures of *any* operation
> would count toward the 3 failures (which is how migration-threshold
> works now), or only failures of the specified operation.
I think if hard-fail-threshold is per-op, then only failures of that
operation should count.
> Currently, if a start fails (but is retried successfully), then a
> promote fails (but is retried successfully), then a monitor fails, the
> resource will move to another node if migration-threshold=3. We could
> keep that behavior with hard-fail-threshold, or only count monitor
> failures toward monitor's hard-fail-threshold. Each alternative has
> advantages and disadvantages.
> The second proposed approach would add a new on-restart-fail resource
> Same as now, on-fail set to anything but restart would be done
> immediately after the first failure. A new value, "ban", would
> immediately move the resource to another node. (on-fail=ban would behave
> like on-fail=restart with migration-threshold=1.)
> When on-fail=restart, and restarting on the same node doesn't work, the
> cluster would do the on-restart-fail handling. on-restart-fail would
> allow the same values as on-fail (minus "restart"), and would default to
I do wish you well tracking "is this a restart" across demote -> stop ->
start -> promote in 4 different transitions :-)
> So, if you want to fence immediately after any promote failure, you
> would still configure on-fail=fence; if you want to try restarting a few
> times first, you would configure on-fail=restart and on-restart-fail=fence.
> This approach keeps the current threshold behavior -- failures of any
> operation count toward the threshold. We'd rename migration-threshold to
> something like hard-fail-threshold, since it would apply to more than
> just migration, but unlike the first approach, it would stay a resource
> Comparing the two approaches, the first is more flexible, but also more
> complex and potentially confusing.
More complex to implement or more complex to configure?
> With either approach, we would deprecate the start-failure-is-fatal
> cluster property. start-failure-is-fatal=true would be equivalent to
> hard-fail-threshold=1 with the first approach, and on-fail=ban with the
> second approach. This would be both simpler and more useful -- it allows
> the value to be set differently per resource.
> Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> 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...
More information about the Users