From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <aderumier@odiso.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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4221E61595
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:54:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2DE1EC46D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:54:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mailpro.odiso.net (mailpro.odiso.net [89.248.211.110])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 71B3DC460
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:54:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mailpro.odiso.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C119A17B9A5A;
Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:54:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mailpro.odiso.net ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mailpro.odiso.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032)
with ESMTP id NxDC4lBBpkWs; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:54:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mailpro.odiso.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A562817B9A5B;
Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:54:40 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mailpro.odiso.com
Received: from mailpro.odiso.net ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mailpro.odiso.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
with ESMTP id uLwP1sAhLkGW; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:54:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mailpro.odiso.net (mailpro.odiso.net [10.1.31.111])
by mailpro.odiso.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907A917B9A5A;
Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:54:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:54:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1928266603.714059.1600059280338.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com>
In-Reply-To: <9e2974b8-3c39-0fda-6f73-6677e3d796f4@proxmox.com>
References: <216436814.339545.1599142316781.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com>
<1551800621.910.1599540071310@webmail.proxmox.com>
<1680829869.439013.1599549082330.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com>
<e80f1080-253d-c43c-4402-258855bcbf18@proxmox.com>
<761694744.496919.1599713892772.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com>
<3ee5d9cf-19be-1067-3931-1c54f1c6043a@proxmox.com>
<1245358354.508169.1599737684557.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com>
<9e2974b8-3c39-0fda-6f73-6677e3d796f4@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.12_GA_3866 (ZimbraWebClient - GC83 (Linux)/8.8.12_GA_3844)
Thread-Topic: corosync bug: cluster break after 1 node clean shutdown
Thread-Index: CAw03L5u7Jx/7qGQfmTPIEgCsXjyIg==
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.038 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_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
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: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 04:54:50 -0000
I wonder if something like pacemaker sbd could be implemented in proxmox as=
extra layer of protection ?
http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/bionic/man8/sbd.8.html
(shared disk heartbeat).
Something like a independent daemon (not using corosync/pmxcfs/...), also c=
onnected to watchdog muxer.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Thomas Lamprecht" <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
=C3=80: "Proxmox VE development discussion" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, =
"aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>
Envoy=C3=A9: Jeudi 10 Septembre 2020 20:21:14
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] corosync bug: cluster break after 1 node clean shutd=
own
On 10.09.20 13:34, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:=20
>>> as said, if the other nodes where not using HA, the watchdog-mux had no=
=20
>>> client which could expire.=20
>=20
> sorry, maybe I have wrong explained it,=20
> but all my nodes had HA enabled.=20
>=20
> I have double check lrm_status json files from my morning backup 2h befor=
e the problem,=20
> they were all in "active" state. ("state":"active","mode":"active" )=20
>=20
OK, so all had a connection to the watchdog-mux open. This shifts the suspi=
cion=20
again over to pmxcfs and/or corosync.=20
> I don't why node7 don't have rebooted, the only difference is that is was=
the crm master.=20
> (I think crm also reset the watchdog counter ? maybe behaviour is differe=
nt than lrm ?)=20
The watchdog-mux stops updating the real watchdog as soon any client discon=
nects or times=20
out. It does not know which client (daemon) that was.=20
>>> above lines also indicate very high load.=20
>>> Do you have some monitoring which shows the CPU/IO load before/during t=
his event?=20
>=20
> load (1,5,15 ) was: 6 (for 48cores), cpu usage: 23%=20
> no iowait on disk (vms are on a remote ceph, only proxmox services are ru=
nning on local ssd disk)=20
>=20
> so nothing strange here :/=20
Hmm, the long loop times could then be the effect of a pmxcfs read or write=
=20
operation being (temporarily) stuck.=20