Re: [PVE-User] Corosync and Cluster reboot

[Gilberto Ferreira <gilberto.nunes32@gmail.com>]

Just to clarify, I had a similar issue in a low latency network with 12
nodes cluster, all with 1G ethernet card.
After adding this token_retransmit to corosync.conf, no more problems.
Perhaps that could help you.






Em ter., 7 de jan. de 2025 às 09:01, Gilberto Ferreira <
gilberto.nunes32@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Try to add this in corosync.conf in one of the nodes:  token_retransmit:
> 200
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Em ter., 7 de jan. de 2025 às 08:24, Iztok Gregori <
> iztok.gregori@elettra.eu> escreveu:
>
>> Hi to all!
>>
>> I need some help to understand a situation (cluster reboot) which
>> happened to us previous week. We are running a 17 nodes Proxmox cluster
>> with a separate Ceph cluster for storage (no hyper-convergence).
>>
>> We have to upgrade a stack a 2 switches and in order to avoid any
>> downtime we decided to prepare a new (temporary) stack and move the
>> links from one switch to the other. Our procedure was the following:
>>
>> - Migrate all the VM from node.
>> - Unplug the links from the old switch.
>> - Plug the links to the temporary switch.
>> - Wait till the node is available again in the cluster.
>> - Repeat.
>>
>> We have to move 8 nodes from one switch to the other. The first 4 nodes
>> went smoothly, but when we did plug the 5th node into the new switch ALL
>> the nodes which have configured HA VMs rebooted!
>>
>>  From the Corosync logs I see that the Token wasn't received and because
>> of that watchdog-mux wasn't updated causing the node reboot.
>>
>> Here are the Corosync logs during the procedure and before the nodes
>> restarted. It was captured from a node which didn't reboot (pve-ha-lrm:
>> idle):
>>
>> > 12:51:57 [KNET  ] link: host: 18 link: 0 is down
>> > 12:51:57 [KNET  ] host: host: 18 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 1)
>> > 12:51:57 [KNET  ] host: host: 18 has no active links
>> > 12:52:02 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9562 ms
>> > 12:52:16 [QUORUM] Sync members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
>> 17 19
>> > 12:52:16 [QUORUM] Sync left[1]: 18
>> > 12:52:16 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d29) was formed. Members left: 18
>> > 12:52:16 [TOTEM ] Failed to receive the leave message. failed: 18
>> > 12:52:16 [QUORUM] Members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19
>> > 12:52:16 [MAIN  ] Completed service synchronization, ready to provide
>> service.
>> > 12:52:42 [KNET  ] rx: host: 18 link: 0 is up
>> > 12:52:42 [KNET  ] host: host: 18 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 1)
>> > 12:52:50 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9567 ms
>> > 12:53:01 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 20324 ms
>> > 12:53:11 [QUORUM] Sync members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
>> 17 19
>> > 12:53:11 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d35) was formed. Members
>> > 12:53:20 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9570 ms
>> > 12:53:31 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 20326 ms
>> > 12:53:41 [QUORUM] Sync members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
>> 17 19
>> > 12:53:41 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d41) was formed. Members
>> > 12:53:50 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9570 ms
>>
>> And here you can find the logs of a successfully completed "procedure":
>>
>> > 12:19:12 [KNET  ] link: host: 19 link: 0 is down
>> > 12:19:12 [KNET  ] host: host: 19 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 1)
>> > 12:19:12 [KNET  ] host: host: 19 has no active links
>> > 12:19:17 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9562 ms
>> > 12:19:31 [QUORUM] Sync members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
>> 17 18
>> > 12:19:31 [QUORUM] Sync left[1]: 19
>> > 12:19:31 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d21) was formed. Members left: 19
>> > 12:19:31 [TOTEM ] Failed to receive the leave message. failed: 19
>> > 12:19:31 [QUORUM] Members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
>> > 12:19:31 [MAIN  ] Completed service synchronization, ready to provide
>> service.
>> > 12:19:47 [KNET  ] rx: host: 19 link: 0 is up
>> > 12:19:47 [KNET  ] host: host: 19 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 1)
>> > 12:19:50 [QUORUM] Sync members[17]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
>> 17 18 19
>> > 12:19:50 [QUORUM] Sync joined[1]: 19
>> > 12:19:50 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d25) was formed. Members joined:
>> 19
>> > 12:19:51 [QUORUM] Members[17]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
>> 19
>> > 12:19:51 [MAIN  ] Completed service synchronization, ready to provide
>> service.
>>
>> Comparing the 2 logs I can see that after the "host: 18" link was found
>> active again the token was not received, but I cannot figure out what
>> went different in this case.
>>
>> I have 2 possible culprits:
>>
>> 1. NETWORK
>>
>> The cluster network is backed up with 5 Extreme Networks switches, 3
>> stacks of two x870 (100GBE), 1 stack of two x770 (40GBE) and one
>> temporary stack of two 7720-32C (100GBE). The switches are linked
>> together by a 2x LACP bond, and the 99% of the cluster communication are
>> on 100GBE.
>>
>> The hosts are connected to the network with different speed interfaces:
>> 10GBE (1 node), 25GBE (4 nodes), 40GBE (1 node), 100GBE (11 nodes). All
>> the nodes are bonded, the Corosync network (is the same as the
>> management one) is defined on a bridge interface on the bonded link
>> (configuration is almost the same on all nodes, some older ones have
>> balance-xor the other have lacp as bonding mode).
>>
>> Is it possible that there is something wrong with the network, but I
>> cannot find a probable cause. From the data that I have, I don't see
>> nothing special, no links were saturated, no error logged...
>>
>> 2. COROSYNC
>>
>> The cluster is running a OLD version of Proxmox (7.1-12) with Corosync
>> 3.1.5-pve2. Is possible that there is a problem in Corosync fixed in a
>> later release. I did a quick search but I didn't found anything. The
>> cluster upgrade is on my to-do list (but the list is huge, so it will
>> not be done tomorrow).
>>
>> We are running only one Corosync network which is the same as the
>> management/migration one, but different from the one for
>> client/storage/backup. The configuration is very basic, I think is the
>> default one, I can provide it if needed.
>>
>> I checked the Corosync stats and the average latency is around 150
>> (microseconds?) along all links on all nodes.
>>
>> ====
>>
>> In general it can be a combination of the 2 above or something
>> completely different.
>>
>> Do you have some advice on where to look to debug further?
>>
>> I can provide more information if needed.
>>
>> Thanks a lot!
>>
>> Iztok
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Iztok Gregori
>> ICT Systems and Services
>> Elettra - Sincrotrone Trieste S.C.p.A.
>> Telephone: +39 040 3758948
>> http://www.elettra.eu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pve-user mailing list
>> pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
>> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
pve-user mailing list
pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user