From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 DD3407F408
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 11:05:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D1EF21781F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 11:04:40 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 4D41817814
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 11:04:40 +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 24F2643667
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 11:04:40 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <965f2d05-7817-09ed-de1c-4205b2459faa@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 11:04:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/95.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20211112084527.109038-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211112084527.109038-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.124 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: [pve-devel] applied: [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 <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: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 10:05:10 -0000

On 12.11.21 09:45, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote:
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>=20
>

applied, thanks!