[ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing

Thu Jul 30 05:05:39 EDT 2020

Reading sbd from SuSE I saw that it requires a special block to write informations, I don't think this is possibile here.

It's a dual node ZFS storage running our own XStreamOS/illumos distribution, and here we're trying to add HA capabilities.
We can move IPs, ZFS Pools and COMSTAR/iSCSI/FC, and now looking for a stable way to manage stonith.

The hardware system is this:

https://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1u/1029/SYS-1029TP-DC0R.cfm

and it features a shared SAS3 backplane, so both nodes can see all the discs concurrently.

Gabriele

Sonicle S.r.l. 
: 
http://www.sonicle.com
Music: 
http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
Quantum Mechanics : 
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
Da:
Reid Wahl
A:
Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
Data:
30 luglio 2020 6.38.58 CEST
Oggetto:
Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
I don't know of a stonith method that acts upon a filesystem directly. You'd generally want to act upon the power state of the node or upon the underlying shared storage.

What kind of hardware or virtualization platform are these systems running on? If there is a hardware watchdog timer, then sbd is possible. The fence_sbd agent (poison-pill fencing via block device) requires shared block storage, but sbd itself only requires a hardware watchdog timer.

Additionally, there may be an existing fence agent that can connect to the controller you mentioned. What kind of controller is it?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 5:24 AM Gabriele Bulfon
gbulfon at sonicle.com
wrote:
Thanks a lot for the extensive explanation!
Any idea about a ZFS stonith?

Gabriele

Sonicle S.r.l. 
: 
http://www.sonicle.com
Music: 
http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
Quantum Mechanics : 
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
Da:
Reid Wahl
nwahl at redhat.com
A:
Cluster Labs - All topics related to open-source clustering welcomed
users at clusterlabs.org
Data:
29 luglio 2020 11.39.35 CEST
Oggetto:
Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Stonith failing
"As it stated in the comments, we don't want to halt or boot via ssh, only reboot."

Generally speaking, a stonith reboot action consists of the following basic sequence of events:
Execute the fence agent with the "off" action.
Poll the power status of the fenced node until it is powered off.
Execute the fence agent with the "on" action.
Poll the power status of the fenced node until it is powered on.
So a custom fence agent that supports reboots, actually needs to support off and on actions.

As Andrei noted, ssh is **not** a reliable method by which to ensure a node gets rebooted or stops using cluster-managed resources. You can't depend on the ability to SSH to an unhealthy node that needs to be fenced.

The only way to guarantee that an unhealthy or unresponsive node stops all access to shared resources is to power off or reboot the node. (In the case of resources that rely on shared storage, I/O fencing instead of power fencing can also work, but that's not ideal.)

As others have said, SBD is a great option. Use it if you can. There are also power fencing methods (one example is fence_ipmilan, but the options available depend on your hardware or virt platform) that are reliable under most circumstances.

You said that when you stop corosync on node 2, Pacemaker tries to fence node 2. There are a couple of possible reasons for that. One possibility is that you stopped or killed corosync without stopping Pacemaker first. (If you use pcs, then try `pcs cluster stop`.) Another possibility is that resources failed to stop during cluster shutdown on node 2, causing node 2 to be fenced.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:47 AM Andrei Borzenkov
arvidjaar at gmail.com
wrote:

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/
--
Regards,
Reid Wahl, RHCA
Software Maintenance Engineer, Red Hat
CEE - Platform Support Delivery - ClusterHA
_______________________________________________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
_______________________________________________Manage your subscription:https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/usersClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20200730/e3420df8/attachment-0001.htm>