From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 03AF87311F for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:33:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E32281EED9 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:33:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 B9D601EEC3 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:33:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com with SMTP id y21so9992309vsm.11 for ; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 05:33:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y06VEmCMA7DsvLntEF2X7g/3r53qhecb57BmPXZjwyM=; b=IvZFO/nyJIbDZYXs5H9APwwRIEuQ2Y8bdg5WJ3gC2cCBdqyLiRd1RDCL1NJHqj6Zs2 jyoSIFCnDeZAUZM/p3YFejb+kA9WxZ3xXpfwBnaIUOnJKqqIv3YpwD/WYRrkgfLLVJeq 13yFpjnR0to1FalONzhI9YldlkTu4GCvwiBsgRokrF20BlWT7nGviCmIq3BA45g+nQOf Nvu8zTDjIoEkDPzw1YkWLrHMKXhXYmdYaAVUP4DoY+N89d0nXDhKFRf+55jF3fnqTaem bkHXApRgabUs4rFj/BNwaRGTvzakTuhBawBUZsyL/vvxD8wr/PraTkIse8pkNa4kDnD/ nzIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y06VEmCMA7DsvLntEF2X7g/3r53qhecb57BmPXZjwyM=; b=bFj4yglFpmKsrfFhYo0rzb+Njm57RGr+62zwAy0rNPzhJHa/pfW3byI7dfOkoHgtrN 4dAfGwoGpHws6mKto21cE970GeqUES8zrtbOC9yJTYIg+dy191dG2HqYBYpWuz/azTor cuDgJXJ7kuaPlT07CIJShatOuAC2V2HOE97jdLA/e+oo43+71fwyCD6/J/m1Q/CKn85o AASydcKG6xFlkt+Y1JB4QehUATnq1X67oUEHy1vjUMFrRn/Sym2//Qw7Fq9WgyBcRSQ9 l1D3GxWNFoJ1BRPmAW8mphpKGccbm4Y5lyOAr7oc38vifKb1Ibo7jVPZGe/BdV5ewHxS FjRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533itnmW6pn50TUpIkh4liLzTm0k4xhp95FmN1JfidBlriKDqabB q+pUDD+YS5HOSgFV5yDF6ZKPh3SDrId2ghK3LUpzZi4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw65VZOADc9LWd1shpmOaqR1mhBa1PFU243xLgB8B9BN+g4TeQiOWatypXt7/7J5nLAc01UB+eOPB1qIV9j/HA= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f70e:: with SMTP id m14mr3022012vso.58.1625488379362; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 05:32:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alex K Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 15:32:48 +0300 Message-ID: To: Proxmox VE user list X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.025 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message POISEN_SPAM_PILL_4 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Proxmox Fencing X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 12:33:09 -0000 On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 3:06 PM Eneko Lacunza via pve-user < pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Eneko Lacunza > To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:06:31 +0200 > Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Proxmox Fencing > Hi Alex, > > >> El 5/7/21 a las 13:18, Alex K escribi=C3=B3: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I'm new to proxmox and trying to setup a 2 + 1 node active/active HA > >>> cluster on top glusterfs using latest community > >> pve-manager/6.4-4/337d6701 > >>> (running kernel: 5.4.106-1-pve). The third node is used for gluster > >>> arbitration and perhaps I have to configure in it a quorum disk also = to > >>> keep quorum in case of a node failure (not clear yet at my mind, stil= l > >>> reading the docs). > >> If you have 3 nodes, you want all them in Proxmox cluster for proper > >> quorum majority. No need for quorum disk that way. (note that I don't > >> know how gluster works). > >> > > Gluser has a similar concept for quorum so as to keep writes on the > > storage. Hence I am placing a third node in the setup. Due to cost > > limitations, the third node has minimal specs and is not meant to host > VMs. > > It is a mini-PC thats why I did not add it as a proxmox host. I am > > wondering if it is possible to add it as a proxmox host and put a > > constraint to avoid VMs migrating into it. In this way I will achieve t= he > > required quorum levels without adding a full spec host. > > Yes, you can create node-groups in HA groups, and add the desired nodes > to the group. Then when adding a VM/CT to HA, configure the group there > too. > I see. Thanx for the pointer. >> I am stuck at the moment at the fencing part of the setup. Reading > through > >>> the docs it seems that I have only the option to setup hardware > watchdog > >>> fencing. I would expect to be able to use external media such as IPMI= , > >>> iDrac, HP iLO or UPS based power management (APC) though I can't find > any > >>> info how these are configured at current version of Proxmox. > >> Currently by default Proxmox uses a software watchdog. I'm not sure if > >> hardware watchdog support was introduced, others may help with this. > >> > > According to the docs it seems there is hardware watchdog option: > > https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/chapter-ha-manager.html > > Q+++ > > hardware watchdog - if not available we fall back to the linux kernel > > software watchdog (softdog) > > +++Q > Never used that, sorry. > >>> In case of a network partition and not a node hardware issue, how is > the > >>> watchdog going to behave? Is a healthy but disconnected node going to > be > >>> power cycled? I will soon proceed with testing as soon as I manage to > >> setup > >>> fencing though I wanted to better understand this part of fencing. > >> The node that drops out of quorum will be rebooted. If there where > >> CM/CTs configured for HA in that node, Proxmox will attempt to restart > >> them in another node. > >> > > So soft-fencing is done from ha-manager? How are the other nodes notifi= ed > > that the rebooted host is indeed rebooted so as to start the HA VMs? > There is a time delay that allows the fended node time to reboot before > other nodes take over the HA VMs. It's like 1-2 minutes. The fenced node > (the one out of the quorum) will reboot in max 60s. > OK. I understand that there is a locking mechanism which takes place and determines the node states. > Cheers > > Eneko Lacunza > Zuzendari teknikoa | Director t=C3=A9cnico > Binovo IT Human Project > > Tel. +34 943 569 206 | https://www.binovo.es > Astigarragako Bidea, 2 - 2=C2=BA izda. Oficina 10-11, 20180 Oiartzun > > https://www.youtube.com/user/CANALBINOVO > https://www.linkedin.com/company/37269706/ > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Eneko Lacunza via pve-user > To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > Cc: Eneko Lacunza > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:06:31 +0200 > Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Proxmox Fencing > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user >