[ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing

[Reid Wahl]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 6:10 AM Gabriele Bulfon <gbulfon at sonicle.com> wrote:

> Thanks to all your suggestions, I now have the systems with stonith
> configured on ipmi.
>
> Two questions:
> - how can I simulate a stonith situation to check that everything is ok?
>

You can run `stonith_admin -B <node>` to tell Pacemaker to reboot the node
using the configured stonith devices. If you want to test a network
failure, you can have iptables block inbound and outbound traffic on the
heartbeat IP address on one node.


> - considering that I have both nodes with stonith against the other node,
> once the two nodes can communicate, how can I be sure the two nodes will
> not try to stonith each other?
>

The simplest option is to add a delay attribute (e.g., delay=10) to one of
the stonith devices. That way, if both nodes want to fence each other, the
node whose stonith device has a delay configured will wait for the delay to
expire before executing the reboot action.

Alternatively, you can set up corosync-qdevice, using a separate system
running qnetd server as a quorum arbitrator.


> :)
> Thanks!
> Gabriele
>
>
>
> *Sonicle S.r.l. *: http://www.sonicle.com
> *Music: *http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
> *Quantum Mechanics : *http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> *Da:* Gabriele Bulfon <gbulfon at sonicle.com>
> *A:* Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
> <users at clusterlabs.org>
> *Data:* 29 luglio 2020 14.22.42 CEST
> *Oggetto:* Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
>
>
>
> It is a ZFS based illumos system.
> I don't think SBD is an option.
> Is there a reliable ZFS based stonith?
>
> Gabriele
>
>
>
> *Sonicle S.r.l. *: http://www.sonicle.com
> *Music: *http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
> *Quantum Mechanics : *http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> *Da:* Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar at gmail.com>
> *A:* Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
> <users at clusterlabs.org>
> *Data:* 29 luglio 2020 9.46.09 CEST
> *Oggetto:* Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 9:01 AM Gabriele Bulfon <gbulfon at sonicle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That one was taken from a specific implementation on Solaris 11.
>> The situation is a dual node server with shared storage controller: both
>> nodes see the same disks concurrently.
>> Here we must be sure that the two nodes are not going to import/mount the
>> same zpool at the same time, or we will encounter data corruption:
>>
>
> ssh based "stonith" cannot guarantee it.
>
>
>> node 1 will be perferred for pool 1, node 2 for pool 2, only in case one
>> of the node goes down or is taken offline the resources should be first
>> free by the leaving node and taken by the other node.
>>
>> Would you suggest one of the available stonith in this case?
>>
>>
>
> IPMI, managed PDU, SBD ...
> In practice, the only stonith method that works in case of complete node
> outage including any power supply is SBD.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Manage your subscription:https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Manage your subscription:https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Manage your subscription:
> https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
>


-- 
Regards,

Reid Wahl, RHCA
Software Maintenance Engineer, Red Hat
CEE - Platform Support Delivery - ClusterHA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20200815/d98d1f64/attachment.htm>