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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FD5761721 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:28:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1283DE828 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:56 +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 41B99E81E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailpro.odiso.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B9617BB45B; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:55 +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 0l7EavjfD8Sj; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailpro.odiso.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F203717BB45C; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:54 +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 zbx4DsaCtveC; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailpro.odiso.net (mailpro.odiso.net [10.1.31.111]) by mailpro.odiso.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBF017BB45B; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:27:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com> To: dietmar <dietmar@proxmox.com> Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <2093781647.723563.1600072074707.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> In-Reply-To: <803983196.1499.1600067690947@webmail.proxmox.com> References: <216436814.339545.1599142316781.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> <1928266603.714059.1600059280338.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <803983196.1499.1600067690947@webmail.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: 7URBTAkaDHlxiMmUY1Bj0yeMqGPaRg== X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.037 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 08:28:26 -0000 > I wonder if something like pacemaker sbd could be implemented in proxmox = as extra layer of protection ?=20 >>AFAIK Thomas already has patches to implement active fencing.=20 >>But IMHO this will not solve the corosync problems..=20 Yes, sure. I'm really to have to 2 differents sources of verification, with= different path/software, to avoid this kind of bug. (shit happens, murphy law ;) as we say in French "ceinture & bretelles" -> "belt and braces" BTW, a user have reported new corosync problem here: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-6-2-corosync-3-rare-and-spontaneo= us-disruptive-udp-5405-storm-flood.75871 (Sound like the bug that I have 6month ago, with corosync bug flooding a lo= f of udp packets, but not the same bug I have here) ----- Mail original ----- De: "dietmar" <dietmar@proxmox.com> =C3=80: "Proxmox VE development discussion" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, = "aderumier" <aderumier@odiso.com>, "Thomas Lamprecht" <t.lamprecht@proxmox.= com> Envoy=C3=A9: Lundi 14 Septembre 2020 09:14:50 Objet: Re: [pve-devel] corosync bug: cluster break after 1 node clean shutd= own > I wonder if something like pacemaker sbd could be implemented in proxmox = as extra layer of protection ?=20 AFAIK Thomas already has patches to implement active fencing.=20 But IMHO this will not solve the corosync problems..=20