[ClusterLabs] 答复: 答复: 答复: How to configure to make each slave resource has one VIP

Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais jgdr at dalibo.com
Thu Mar 8 04:41:00 EST 2018

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 01:45:43 +0000
范国腾 <fanguoteng at highgo.com> wrote:

> Sorry, Rorthais, I have thought that the link and the attachment was the same
> document yesterday.

No problem.

For your information, I merged the draft in the official documentation

> I just read the attachment and that is exactly what I ask
> originally.

Excellent! Glad it could helped.

> I have two questions on the following two command:
> # pcs constraint colocation add pgsql-ip-stby1 with slave pgsql-ha 10
> Q: Does the score 10 means that " move to the master if there is no standby
> alive "?

Kind of. It actually says nothing about moving to the master. It just says
the slaves IP should prefers to locate with a slave. If slaves nodes are down
or in standby, the IP "can" move to the master as nothing forbid it.

In fact, while writing this sentence, I realize there's nothing to push the
slaves IP on the master if other nodes are up, but the pgsql-ha slaves are
stopped or banned. The configuration I provided is incomplete.

1. I added the missing constraints in the doc online
2. notice I raised all the scores so they are higher than the stickiness


Sorry for this :/

> # pcs constraint order start pgsql-ha then start pgsql-ip-stby1 kind=Mandatory
> Q: I did not set the order and I did not find the issue until now. So I add
> this constraint? What will happen if I miss it?

The IP address can start before PostgreSQL is up on the node. You will have
client connexions being rejected with error "PostgreSQL is not listening on
host [...]".

> Here is what I did now:
> pcs resource create pgsql-slave-ip1 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 ip=
>   nic=enp3s0f0 cidr_netmask=24 op monitor interval=10s; 
> pcs resource create pgsql-slave-ip2 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 ip= 
>   nic=enp3s0f0 cidr_netmask=24 op monitor interval=10s; 
> pcs constraint colocation add pgsql-slave-ip1 with pgsql-ha 

It misses the score and the role. Without role specification, it can colocates
with Master or Slave with no preference.

> pcs constraint colocation add pgsql-slave-ip2 with pgsql-ha 

Same, it misses the score and the role.

> pcs constraint colocation set pgsql-slave-ip1 pgsql-slave-ip2
>   pgsql-master-ip setoptions score=-1000

The score seems too high in  my opinion, compared to other ones.

You should probably remove all the colocation constraints and try with the one
I pushed online.


> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais [mailto:jgdr at dalibo.com] 
> 发送时间: 2018年3月7日 16:29
> 收件人: 范国腾 <fanguoteng at highgo.com>
> 抄送: Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
> <users at clusterlabs.org> 主题: Re: [ClusterLabs] 答复: 答复: 答复: How to
> configure to make each slave resource has one VIP
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 01:27:16 +0000
> 范国腾 <fanguoteng at highgo.com> wrote:
> > Thank you, Rorthais,
> > 
> > I read the link and it is very helpful.  
> Did you read the draft I attached to the email? It was the main purpose of my
> answer: helping you with IP on slaves. It seems to me your mail is reporting
> different issues than the original subject.
> > There are some issues that I have met when I installed the cluster.  
> I suppose this is another subject and we should open a new thread with the
> appropriate subject.
> > 1. “pcs cluster stop” could not stop the cluster in some times.  
> You would have to give some more details about the context where "pcs cluster
> stop" timed out.
> > 2. when I upgrade the PAF, I could just replace the pgsqlms file. When 
> > I upgrade the postgres, I just replace the /usr/local/pgsql/.  
> I believe both actions are documented with best practices in this links I
> gave you.
> > 3.  If the cluster does not stop normally, the pgcontroldata status is 
> > not "SHUTDOWN",then the PAF would not start the postgresql any more, 
> > so I normally change the pgsqlms as below after installing the PAF.
> > [...]  
> This should be discussed to understand the exact context before considering
> your patch.
> At a first glance, your patch seems quite dangerous as it bypass the sanity
> checks.
> Please, could you start a new thread with proper subject and add extensive
> informations about this issue? You could open a new issue on PAF repository
> as well: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/PAF/issues
> Regards,

Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais

More information about the Users mailing list