[ClusterLabs] RFC: allowing soft recovery attempts before ignore/block/etc.
kwenning at redhat.com
Mon Sep 26 05:39:35 EDT 2016
On 09/24/2016 01:12 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 09/22/2016 05:58 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com
>> <mailto:kgaillot at redhat.com>> wrote:
>> On 09/22/2016 09:53 AM, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>> > On 22/09/16 08:42 +0200, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
>> >> Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com <mailto:kgaillot at redhat.com>> writes:
>> >>> I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's more complicated than it
>> >>> first sounds, so it's worth thinking through the implications.
>> >> Thinking about it and looking at how complicated it gets, maybe what
>> >> you'd really want, to make it clearer for the user, is the ability to
>> >> explicitly configure the behavior, either globally or per-resource. So
>> >> instead of having to tweak a set of variables that interact in complex
>> >> ways, you'd configure something like rule expressions,
>> >> <on_fail>
>> >> <restart repeat="3" />
>> >> <migrate timeout="60s" />
>> >> <fence/>
>> >> </on_fail>
>> >> So, try to restart the service 3 times, if that fails migrate the
>> >> service, if it still fails, fence the node.
>> >> (obviously the details and XML syntax are just an example)
>> >> This would then replace on-fail, migration-threshold, etc.
>> > I must admit that in previous emails in this thread, I wasn't able to
>> > follow during the first pass, which is not the case with this procedural
>> > (sequence-ordered) approach. Though someone can argue it doesn't take
>> > type of operation into account, which might again open the door for
>> > non-obvious interactions.
>> "restart" is the only on-fail value that it makes sense to escalate.
>> block/stop/fence/standby are final. Block means "don't touch the
>> resource again", so there can't be any further response to failures.
>> Stop/fence/standby move the resource off the local node, so failure
>> handling is reset (there are 0 failures on the new node to begin with).
>> "Ignore" is theoretically possible to escalate, e.g. "ignore 3 failures
>> then migrate", but I can't think of a real-world situation where that
>> makes sense,
>> it is not uncommon to hear "i know its failed, but i dont want the
>> cluster to do anything until its _really_ failed"
> Hmm, I guess that would be similar to how monitoring systems such as
> nagios can be configured to send an alert only if N checks in a row
> fail. That's useful where transient outages (e.g. a webserver hitting
> its request limit) are acceptable for a short time.
> I'm not sure that's translatable to Pacemaker. Pacemaker's error count
> is not "in a row" but "since the count was last cleared".
> "Ignore up to three monitor failures if they occur in a row [or, within
> 10 minutes?], then try soft recovery for the next two monitor failures,
> then ban this node for the next monitor failure." Not sure being able to
> say that is worth the complexity.
That is the reason why I suggested to think of a solution that
comes up with a certain number of statistics in environment
variables and leaves the final logic to be scripted in the RA
or an additional script.
>> and it would be a significant re-implementation of "ignore"
>> (which currently ignores the state of having failed, as opposed to a
>> particular instance of failure).
>> What the interface needs to express is: "If this operation fails,
>> optionally try a soft recovery [always stop+start], but if <N> failures
>> occur on the same node, proceed to a [configurable] hard recovery".
>> And of course the interface will need to be different depending on how
>> certain details are decided, e.g. whether any failures count toward <N>
>> or just failures of one particular operation type, and whether the hard
>> recovery type can vary depending on what operation failed.
> 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
More information about the Users