<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/17/24 16:33, Ken Gaillot wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ded0295f91a98373df77026f86b29d41942ed00e.camel@redhat.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 14:23 +0100, Adam Cécile wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hello,
I'm trying to achieve the following setup with 3 hosts:
* One master gets a shared IP, then remove default gw, add another
gw,
start a service
* Two slaves should have none of them but add a different default gw
I managed quite easily to get the master workflow running with
ordering
constraints but I don't understand how I should move forward with
the
slave configuration.
I think I must create a promotable resource first then assign my
other
resources with started/stopped setting depending on the promote
status
of the node. Is that correct ? How to create a promotable
"placeholder"
where I can later attach my existing resources ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
A promotable resource would be appropriate if the service should run on
all nodes, but one node runs with a special setting. That doesn't sound
like what you have.
If you just need the service to run on one node, the shared IP,
service, and both gateways can be regular resources. You just need
colocation constraints between them:
- colocate service and external default route with shared IP
- clone the internal default route and anti-colocate it with shared IP
If you want the service to be able to run even if the IP can't, make
its colocation score finite (or colocate the IP and external route with
the service).
Ordering is separate. You can order the shared IP, service, and
external route however needed. Alternatively, you can put the three of
them in a group (which does both colocation and ordering, in sequence),
and anti-colocate the cloned internal route with the group.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Sorry for the stupid question but I really don't understand what type
of
elements I should create...
Thanks in advance,
Regards, Adam.
PS: Bonus question should I use "pcs" or "crm" ? It seems both
command
seem to be equivalent and documentations use sometime one or another
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
They are equivalent -- it's a matter of personal preference (and often
what choices your distro give you).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for your suggestion, it seems I have something that
work correctly now, final configuration is:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>pcs property set stonith-enabled=false<br>
<br>
pcs resource create Internal-IPv4 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2
ip=10.0.0.254 nic=eth0 cidr_netmask=24 op monitor interval=30<br>
pcs resource create Public-IPv4 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 ip=1.2.3.4
nic=eth1 cidr_netmask=28 op monitor interval=30<br>
pcs resource create Public-IPv4-Gateway ocf:heartbeat:Route
destination=0.0.0.0/0 device=eth1 gateway=1.2.3.14 op monitor
interval=30<br>
<br>
pcs constraint colocation add Internal-IPv4 with Public-IPv4
score=+INFINITY<br>
pcs constraint colocation add Public-IPv4 with Public-IPv4-Gateway
score=+INFINITY<br>
<br>
pcs constraint order Internal-IPv4 then Public-IPv4<br>
pcs constraint order Public-IPv4 then Public-IPv4-Gateway<br>
<br>
pcs resource create Internal-IPv4-Gateway ocf:heartbeat:Route
destination=0.0.0.0/0 device=eth0 gateway=10.0.0.254 op monitor
interval=30 --force<br>
pcs resource clone Internal-IPv4-Gateway<br>
<br>
pcs constraint colocation add Internal-IPv4-Gateway-clone with
Internal-IPv4 score=-INFINITY<br>
<br>
pcs stonith create vmfence fence_vmware_rest
pcmk_host_map="gw-1:gw-1;gw-2:gw-2;gw-3:gw-3" ip=10.1.2.3 ssl=1
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:username=corosync@vsphere.local">username=corosync@vsphere.local</a> password=p4ssw0rd ssl_insecure=1</p>
<p>pcs property set stonith-enabled=true<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Any comment regarding this configuration ?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I have a quick one regarding fencing. I disconnected eth0 from
gw-3 and the VM has been restarted automatically, so I guess it's
the fencing agent that kicked in. However, I left the VM in such
state (so it's seen offline by other nodes) and I thought it would
end up being powered off for good. However, it seems fencing agent
is keeping it powered on. Is that expected ?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Best regards, Adam.<br>
</p>
<div id="grammalecte_menu_main_button_shadow_host"
style="width: 0px; height: 0px;"></div>
</body>
</html>