From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 08FCC613C3 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:56:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F195CB77B for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:56:07 +0100 (CET) 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 6DB96B76F for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:56:06 +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 3336E44CD9; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:56:06 +0100 (CET) To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> References: <mailman.123.1607016026.440.pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <54788183-7b87-e65a-a97a-8a607e1161e8@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:56:05 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <mailman.123.1607016026.440.pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.004 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [PVE-User] HA VMs - and timeout X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 07:56:08 -0000 On 12/3/20 6:20 PM, Alejandro Bonilla via pve-user wrote: > Hello - > > I’ve just implemented an HA Group and then added my VMs as resources to be managed across my 3-node group. After struggling with ha-manager to disable/enable and unlocking VMs due to stuck migrations at first, I feel I can clear the usual issues as VMs get stuck. > > My question comes from the fact that I use Proxmox for my Lab, therefore I script a few things and start my servers in the morning but the HA VMs always come up in an error state - likely due to Ceph or the cluster not being fully ready. I have implemented a delay start of 60 seconds which used to be enough. Is this delay also respected when the HA resources/VMs are managed by HA? You mean the delay when you configure the guests to boot when the host is starting? I haven't tested it explicitly but HA should not take that delay into account. > > Which log can I see to identify why these VMs never started and errored? In the task log you should see the start jobs for each VM and if there is a problem starting it, those would be the first place to look. Otherwise the syslog. > > A separate question - is there an easier way to test/simulate a dead/node failure besides actually killing my hosts? Take down/disconnect the interface over which corosync communicates. The isolated node will fence itself after it lost connection to the quorum part of the cluster. > > Thanks > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user >