[ClusterLabs] Interface confusion
Adam Budziński
budzinski.adam at gmail.com
Sat Mar 16 02:01:14 EDT 2019
Thank you Andrei. The problem is that I can see with 'pcs status' that
resources are runnin on srv2cr1 but its at the same time its telling that
the fence_vmware_soap is running on srv1cr1. That's somewhat confusing.
Could you possibly explain this?
Thank you!
sob., 16.03.2019, 05:37 użytkownik Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar at gmail.com>
napisał:
> 16.03.2019 1:16, Adam Budziński пишет:
> > Hi Tomas,
> >
> > Ok but how then pacemaker or the fence agent knows which route to take to
> > reach the vCenter?
>
> They do not know or care at all. It is up to your underlying operating
> system and its routing tables.
>
> > Btw. Do I have to add the stonith resource on each of the nodes or is it
> > just enough to add it on one as for other resources?
>
> If your fencing agent can (should) be able to run on any node, it should
> be enough to define it just once as long as it can properly determine
> "port" to use on fencing "device" for a given node. There are cases when
> you may want to restrict fencing agent to only subset on nodes or when
> you are forced to set unique parameter for each node (consider IPMI IP
> address), in this case you would need separate instance of agent in each
> case.
>
> > Thank you!
> >
> > pt., 15.03.2019, 15:48 użytkownik Tomas Jelinek <tojeline at redhat.com>
> > napisał:
> >
> >> Dne 15. 03. 19 v 15:09 Adam Budziński napsal(a):
> >>> Hello Tomas,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you! So far I need to say how great this community is, would
> >>> never expect so much positive vibes! A big thank you your doing a great
> >>> job!
> >>>
> >>> Now let's talk business :)
> >>>
> >>> So if pcsd is using ring0 and it fails will ring1 not be used at all?
> >>
> >> Pcs and pcsd never use ring1, but they are just tools for managing
> >> clusters. You can have a perfectly functioning cluster without pcs and
> >> pcsd running or even installed, it would be just more complicated to set
> >> it up and manage it.
> >>
> >> Even if ring0 fails, you will be able to use pcs (in somehow limited
> >> manner) as most of its commands don't go through network anyway.
> >>
> >> Corosync, which is the actual cluster messaging layer, will of course
> >> use ring1 in case of ring0 failure.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So in regards to VMware that would mean that the interface should be
> >>> configured with a network that can access the vCenter to fence right?
> >>> But wouldn't it then use only ring0 so if that fails it wouldn't switch
> >>> to ring1?
> >>
> >> If you are talking about pcmk_host_map, that does not really have
> >> anything to do with network interfaces of cluster nodes. It maps node
> >> names (parts before :) to "ports" of a fence device (parts after :).
> >> Pcs-0.9.x does not support defining custom node names, therefore node
> >> names are the same as ring0 addresses.
> >>
> >> I am not an expert on fence agents / devices, but I'm sure someone else
> >> on this list will be able to help you with configuring fencing for your
> >> cluster.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tomas
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you!
> >>>
> >>> pt., 15.03.2019, 13:14 użytkownik Tomas Jelinek <tojeline at redhat.com
> >>> <mailto:tojeline at redhat.com>> napisał:
> >>>
> >>> Dne 15. 03. 19 v 12:32 Adam Budziński napsal(a):
> >>> > Hello Folks,____
> >>> >
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > Tow node active/passive VMware VM cluster.____
> >>> >
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > /etc/hosts____
> >>> >
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > 10.116.63.83 srv1____
> >>> >
> >>> > 10.116.63.84 srv2____
> >>> >
> >>> > 172.16.21.12 srv2cr1____
> >>> >
> >>> > 172.16.22.12 srv2cr2____
> >>> >
> >>> > 172.16.21.11 srv1cr1____
> >>> >
> >>> > 172.16.22.11 srv1cr2____
> >>> >
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > I have 3 NIC’s on each VM:____
> >>> >
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > 10.116.63.83 srv1 and 10.116.63.84 srv2 are networks used
> >> to
> >>> > access the VM’s via SSH or any resource directly if not via a
> >>> VIP.____
> >>> >
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > Everything with cr in its name is used for corosync
> >>> communication, so
> >>> > basically I have two rings (this are two no routable networks
> >>> just for
> >>> > that).____
> >>> >
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > My questions are:____
> >>> >
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > __1.__With ‘pcs cluster auth’ which interface / interfaces
> should
> >>> I use
> >>> > ?____
> >>>
> >>> Hi Adam,
> >>>
> >>> I can see you are using pcs-0.9.x. In that case you should do:
> >>> pcs cluster auth srv1cr1 srv2cr1
> >>>
> >>> In other words, use the first address of each node.
> >>> Authenticating all the other addresses should not cause any issues.
> >> It
> >>> is pointless, though, as pcs only communicates via ring0 addresses.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > __2.__With ‘pcs cluster setup –name’ I would use the corosync
> >>> interfaces
> >>> > e.g. ‘pcs cluster setup –name MyCluster srv1cr1,srv1cr2
> >>> srv2cr1,srv2cr2’
> >>> > right ?____
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that is correct.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > __3.__With fence_vmware_soap
> inpcmk_host_map="X:VM_C;X:VM:OTRS_D"
> >>> which
> >>> > interface should replace X ?____
> >>>
> >>> X should be replaced by node names as seen by pacemaker. Once you
> >>> set up
> >>> and start your cluster, run 'pcs status' to get (amongs other info)
> >> the
> >>> node names. In your configuration, they should be srv1cr1 and
> >> srv2cr1.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Tomas
> >>>
> >>> > __ __
> >>> >
> >>> > Thank you!
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> >>> <mailto:Users at clusterlabs.org>
> >>> > https://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
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org <mailto:
> >> Users at clusterlabs.org>
> >>> https://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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> >>> https://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
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> >> https://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
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> > https://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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> https://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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20190316/65563a06/attachment.html>
More information about the Users
mailing list