[ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Inquiry - remote node fencing issue

[Ken Gaillot]

On Fri, 2021-10-29 at 13:59 +0000, Gerry R Sommerville wrote:
> Hey Andrei,
>  
> Thanks for your response again. The cluster nodes and remote hosts
> each share two networks, however there is no routing between them. I
> don't suppose there is a configuration parameter we can set to tell
> Pacemaker to try communicating with the remotes using multiple IP
> addresses?
>  
> Gerry Sommerville
> E-mail: gerry at ca.ibm.com

Hi,

No, but you can use bonding if you want to have interface redundancy
for a remote connection. To be clear, there is no requirement that
remote nodes and cluster nodes have the same level of redundancy, it's
just a design choice.

To address the original question, this is the log sequence I find most
relevant:

> Oct 22 12:21:09.389 jangcluster-srv-2 pacemaker-schedulerd[776553]
> (unpack_rsc_op_failure)      warning: Unexpected result (error) was
> recorded for monitor of jangcluster-srv-4 on jangcluster-srv-2 at Oct
> 22 12:21:09 2021 | rc=1 id=jangcluster-srv-4_last_failure_0

> Oct 22 12:21:09.389 jangcluster-srv-2 pacemaker-schedulerd[776553]
> (unpack_rsc_op_failure)      notice: jangcluster-srv-4 will not be
> started under current conditions

> Oct 22 12:21:09.389 jangcluster-srv-2 pacemaker-schedulerd[
> 776553] (pe_fence_node)      warning: Remote node jangcluster-srv-4
> will be fenced: remote connection is unrecoverable

The "will not be started" is why the node had to be fenced. There was
nowhere to recover the connection. I'd need to see the CIB from that
time to know why; it's possible you had an old constraint banning the
connection from the other node (e.g. from a ban or move command), or
something like that.
-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>