From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44D28628BE for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:21:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 40A71B791 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:21:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 98FD3B785 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:21:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5FC7445414 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:21:52 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:21:45 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> References: <216436814.339545.1599142316781.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <597522514.840749.1600185513450.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <1097647242.851726.1600241667098.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <602718914.852368.1600243082185.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <1767271081.853403.1600245029802.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <1894376736.864562.1600253445817.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <2054513461.868164.1600262132255.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <2bdde345-b966-d393-44d1-e5385821fbad@proxmox.com> <65105078.871552.1600269422383.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> In-Reply-To: <65105078.871552.1600269422383.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1600333910.bmtyynl8cl.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.030 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [odiso.net] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] corosync bug: cluster break after 1 node clean shutdown X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:21:54 -0000 On September 16, 2020 5:17 pm, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: > I have produce it again, with the coredump this time >=20 >=20 > restart corosync : 17:05:27 >=20 > http://odisoweb1.odiso.net/pmxcfs-corosync2.log >=20 >=20 > bt full >=20 > https://gist.github.com/aderumier/466dcc4aedb795aaf0f308de0d1c652b >=20 >=20 > coredump >=20 >=20 > http://odisoweb1.odiso.net/core.7761.gz just a short update on this: dcdb is stuck in START_SYNC mode, but nodeid 13 hasn't sent a STATE msg=20 (yet). this looks like either the START_SYNC message to node 13, or the=20 STATE response from it got lost or processed wrong. until the mode switches to SYNCED (after all states have been received and the state=20 update went through), regular/normal messages can be sent, but the=20 incoming normal messages are queued and not processed. this is why the=20 fuse access blocks, it sends the request out, but the response ends up=20 in the queue. status (the other thing running on top of dfsm) got correctly synced up=20 at the same time, so it's either a dcdb specific bug, or just bad luck=20 that one was affected and the other wasn't. unfortunately even with debug enabled the logs don't contain much=20 information that would help (e.g., we don't log sending/receiving STATE=20 messages except when they look 'wrong'), so Thomas is trying to=20 reproduce this using your scenario here to improve turn around time. if=20 we can't reproduce it, we'll have to send you patches/patched debs with=20 increased logging to narrow down what is going on. if we can, than we=20 can hopefully find and fix the issue fast. =