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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC5C960CC9
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:21:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B8D8B1E5FD
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:21:16 +0200 (CEST)
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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 8F4D41E5F0
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:21:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 553DA44B0D;
Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:21:15 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com>
References: <216436814.339545.1599142316781.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com>
<1066029576.414316.1599471133463.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com>
<872332597.423950.1599485006085.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>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <9e2974b8-3c39-0fda-6f73-6677e3d796f4@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:21:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:81.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/81.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1245358354.508169.1599737684557.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 1.583 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 -3.576 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
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: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:21:16 -0000
On 10.09.20 13:34, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>> as said, if the other nodes where not using HA, the watchdog-mux had =
no
>>> client which could expire.
>=20
> sorry, maybe I have wrong explained it,
> but all my nodes had HA enabled.
>=20
> I have double check lrm_status json files from my morning backup 2h bef=
ore the problem,
> they were all in "active" state. ("state":"active","mode":"active" )
>=20
OK, so all had a connection to the watchdog-mux open. This shifts the sus=
picion
again over to pmxcfs and/or corosync.
> I don't why node7 don't have rebooted, the only difference is that is w=
as the crm master.
> (I think crm also reset the watchdog counter ? maybe behaviour is diffe=
rent than lrm ?)
The watchdog-mux stops updating the real watchdog as soon any client disc=
onnects or times
out. It does not know which client (daemon) that was.
>>> above lines also indicate very high load.=20
>>> Do you have some monitoring which shows the CPU/IO load before/during=
this event?=20
>=20
> load (1,5,15 ) was: 6 (for 48cores), cpu usage: 23%
> no iowait on disk (vms are on a remote ceph, only proxmox services are =
running on local ssd disk)
>=20
> so nothing strange here :/
Hmm, the long loop times could then be the effect of a pmxcfs read or wri=
te
operation being (temporarily) stuck.