From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF4521FF17F for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 May 2025 15:09:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EB546AAC4; Mon, 19 May 2025 15:09:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com> To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 15:09:32 +0200 Message-Id: <20250519130935.365142-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.094 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH ha-manager 0/3] watchdog: sync log to disk before and after expiring 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> It is very hard to provide a definitive answer to whether a host fenced or not. In some cases the journal on the disk can be missing up to 2 minutes since its last logged entry and the time where another node detects the corosync link is down, with such a gap, the fenced node would not even record that it lost conenction and it is not possible to fully-determine if the node was fenced or not. This series: - adds a second warning 10 seconds before the watchdog expires - syncs the journal to disk after the warning was issued - syncs the journal to disk after the watchdog expires The variable names in the second commit could use some feedback. The way the warning timeout is defined was arbitrary (10 seconds before the fence). Maximiliano Sandoval (3): watchdog: separate if in two parts watchdog: warn when about to expire watchdog: sync journal after sending expiration related messages src/watchdog-mux.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) -- 2.39.5 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel