From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 C223E7F59C for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:00:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B15F81A4D0 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:59:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 08CA01A4C5 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:59:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CCC4343651 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:59:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:59:32 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Fabian Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion , Thomas Lamprecht References: <20211112084527.109038-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <28cc8b6a-b34f-4cb4-a5de-9e4b8f5aa4df@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <28cc8b6a-b34f-4cb4-a5de-9e4b8f5aa4df@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1636721818.35yhvi2ls0.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.262 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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. [clusterconfig.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH cluster] fix #3596: handle delnode of offline node X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:00:10 -0000 On November 12, 2021 1:14 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 12.11.21 12:50, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> Am 12.11.21 um 09:45 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: >>> the recommended way is to first shutdown, then delnode, and never let i= t >>> come back online, in which case corosync-cfgtool won't be able to kill >>> the removed (offline) node. >>> >>> also, the order was wrong - if we first update corosync.conf to remove >>> the node entry from the nodelist, corosync doesn't know about the nodei= d >>> anymore, so killing will fail even if the node is still online. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler >>> --- >>> =C2=A0 data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm | 8 ++++++-- >>> =C2=A0 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConf= ig.pm >>> index 8f4a5bb..5a6a1ac 100644 >>> --- a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm >>> +++ b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm >>> @@ -485,9 +485,13 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 delete $n= odelist->{$node}; >>> =C2=A0 -=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 PVE::Corosync::updat= e_nodelist($conf, $nodelist); >>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 # allowed to fail when node= is already shut down! >>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 eval { >>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 PVE::Tools::run_command(['c= orosync-cfgtool','-k', $nodeid]) >>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if = defined($nodeid); >>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 }; >>> =C2=A0=20 >>=20 >> But what if it fails for a different reason than 'CS_ERR_NOT_EXIST'? Sho= uldn't we match the error? >=20 > at least that examples is like ENOENT on unlink, an OK error (user could > have -k'illed it before that). > IMHO it's okay to treat all errors as warnings here - if you follow the=20 instructions killing is not possible. if you didn't follow them, and the=20 node is online, but killing fails for some reason you still get the=20 output, the node is removed from corosync.conf on all nodes, and thus no=20 traffic is possible anymore between the cluster and the separated node=20 (knet will reject traffic from unknown -i.e., not contained in the=20 nodelist- nodes). no traffic means the separated node is kicked out of=20 the quorum, so it can't do any harm anymore ;)