[ClusterLabs] Colocation of a primitive resource with a clone with limited copies
wrona at cesnet.cz
Thu Apr 20 16:16:28 EDT 2017
On 20.4.2017 19:33, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 04/20/2017 10:52 AM, Jan Wrona wrote:
>> my problem is closely related to the thread , but I didn't find a
>> solution there. I have a resource that is set up as a clone C restricted
>> to two copies (using the clone-max=2 meta attribute||), because the
>> resource takes long time to get ready (it starts immediately though),
> A resource agent must not return from "start" until a "monitor"
> operation would return success.
> Beyond that, the cluster doesn't care what "ready" means, so it's OK if
> it's not fully operational by some measure. However, that raises the
> question of what you're accomplishing with your monitor.
I know all that and my RA respects that. I didn't want to go into
details about the service I'm running, but maybe it will help you
understand. Its a data collector which receives and processes data from
a UDP stream. To understand these data, it needs templates which
periodically occur in the stream (every five minutes or so). After
"start" the service is up and running, "monitor" operations are
successful, but until the templates arrive the service is not "ready". I
basically need to somehow simulate this "ready" state.
>> and by having it ready as a clone, I can failover in the time it takes
>> to move an IP resource. I have a colocation constraint "resource IP with
>> clone C", which will make sure IP runs with a working instance of C:
>> Clone: dummy-clone
>> Meta Attrs: clone-max=2 interleave=true
>> Resource: dummy (class=ocf provider=heartbeat type=Dummy)
>> Operations: start interval=0s timeout=20 (dummy-start-interval-0s)
>> stop interval=0s timeout=20 (dummy-stop-interval-0s)
>> monitor interval=10 timeout=20 (dummy-monitor-interval-10)
>> Resource: ip (class=ocf provider=heartbeat type=Dummy)
>> Operations: start interval=0s timeout=20 (ip-start-interval-0s)
>> stop interval=0s timeout=20 (ip-stop-interval-0s)
>> monitor interval=10 timeout=20 (ip-monitor-interval-10)
>> Colocation Constraints:
>> ip with dummy-clone (score:INFINITY)
>> Clone Set: dummy-clone [dummy]
>> Started: [ sub1.example.org sub3.example.org ]
>> ip (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started sub1.example.org
>> This is fine until the the active node (sub1.example.org) fails. Instead
>> of moving the IP to the passive node (sub3.example.org) with ready clone
>> instance, Pacemaker will move it to the node where it just started a
>> fresh instance of the clone (sub2.example.org in my case):
>> New state:
>> Clone Set: dummy-clone [dummy]
>> Started: [ sub2.example.org sub3.example.org ]
>> ip (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started sub2.example.org
>> Documentation states that the cluster will choose a copy based on where
>> the clone is running and the resource's own location preferences, so I
>> don't understand why this is happening. Is there a way to tell Pacemaker
>> to move the IP to the node where the resource is already running?
>> Jan Wrona
>>  http://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/2016-November/004540.html
> The cluster places ip based on where the clone will be running at that
> point in the recovery, rather than where it was running before recovery.
> Unfortunately I can't think of a way to do exactly what you want,
> hopefully someone else has an idea.
> One possibility would be to use on-fail=standby on the clone monitor.
> That way, instead of recovering the clone when it fails, all resources
> on the node would move elsewhere. You'd then have to manually take the
> node out of standby for it to be usable again.
I don't see how that would solve it. The node would be put into the
standby state, cluster would recover the clone instance on some other
node and possibly place the IP there too. Moreover I don't want to put
the whole node into standby because of one failed monitor.
> It might be possible to do something more if you convert the clone to a
> master/slave resource, and colocate ip with the master role. For
> example, you could set the master score based on how long the service
> has been running, so the longest-running instance is always master.
This sounds promising, I have heard about master/slave resources but
never actually used any. I'll look more into that, thanks you for your
> 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