[ClusterLabs] Proper procedure for pacemaker RPM upgrades in active cluster

Doug Cahill handruin at gmail.com
Wed Jan 17 11:20:40 EST 2018

Thank you Ken for the feedback on this.  That doc was exactly what I
was looking for but missed it in my searches.  I did some testing with
using "crm configure property maintenance-mode=true" and my upgrade
from 1.1.17 to 1.1.18 worked in my test environment.

Good info on the 1.1.18 regression fix, thanks.  Will the fixes for
the regression eventually be put into a specific release under the
1.1.x version or will I need to wait for a 2.0 release?  I'm hesitant
to release a build of the 1.1 upstream into my production.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 15:42 -0500, Doug Cahill wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I'm looking for some guidance on pacemaker RPM upgrades in a running
>> cluster environment.  I'm looking to automate the process of
>> upgrading
>> the RPMs when we decide to plan an upgrade cycle for our clusters.
>> What I found is that during the RPM upgrade process the
>> pacemaker.x86_64 RPM will shutdown the pacemaker service.  My
>> question
>> regarding this is...is it possible to upgrade the RPM component but
>> delay the restart part of the pacemaker service to a later time?  If
>> delaying the restart isn't possible, what is the preferred process
>> for
>> people with existing clusters that require package upgrades?  Should
>> I
>> upgrade the passive side first and then fail over to it and then
>> upgrade the other node which is now passive?  Does pacemaker support
>> running two nodes at different version levels during the upgrade
>> process?  Would enabling maintenance mode be appropriate/ideal for
>> this?
> Yes to most of those :)
> Detailed information about upgrade techniques:
> http://clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1/html-single/Pa
> cemaker_Explained/index.html#_upgrading
> Basically, the failover scenario you mentioned is the "rolling upgrade"
> technique, and the maintenance mode scenario you mentioned is the
> "detach and reattach" technique.
> Each has advantages and disadvantages. A rolling upgrade lets you keep
> on node on a known working setup as long as possible, while a detach-
> and-reattach gives you zero downtime (as long the upgrade has no
> problems ...).
>> I last experienced this situation when I upgraded from 1.1.15 to
>> 1.1.17.  Now that pacemaker 1.1.18 is available I'm looking to plan
>> this process a little better and would like to know what others use
>> as
>> a procedure.
>> Basic software config:
>> CentOS 6.x (2.6.32-696.13.2.el6.x86_64)
>> pacemaker.x86_64       1.1.17-1.el6
>> corosync.x86_64        2.4.2-1.el6
>> crmsh.noarch           3.0.1_283-0
>> Two-node Cluster resources are configured for active/passive
>> operation.
>> Thanks,
>> -Doug
> On a side note, if you're building 1.1.18 packages yourself, it's a
> good idea to use the latest upstream 1.1 branch, because it fixes an
> important regression in 1.1.18.
> --
> Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> http://lists.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

More information about the Users mailing list