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 387F07F42A for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:14:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 256AF1967F for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:14:20 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 0872B19671 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:14:19 +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 D05DA43716 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:14:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <28cc8b6a-b34f-4cb4-a5de-9e4b8f5aa4df@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 13:14:17 +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 , Fabian Ebner , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20211112084527.109038-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.848 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 NICE_REPLY_A -3.449 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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: Re: [pve-devel] [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:14:50 -0000 On 12.11.21 12:50, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Am 12.11.21 um 09:45 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: >> the recommended way is to first shutdown, then delnode, and never let = it >> come back online, in which case corosync-cfgtool won't be able to kill= >> the removed (offline) node. >> >> 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 node= id >> anymore, so killing will fail even if the node is still online. >> >> Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler >> --- >> =C2=A0 data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm | 8 ++++++-- >> =C2=A0 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterCon= fig.pm >> index 8f4a5bb..5a6a1ac 100644 >> --- a/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm >> +++ b/data/PVE/API2/ClusterConfig.pm >> @@ -485,9 +485,13 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 delete $= nodelist->{$node}; >> =C2=A0 -=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 PVE::Corosync::upda= te_nodelist($conf, $nodelist); >> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 # allowed to fail when nod= e is already shut down! >> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 eval { >> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 PVE::Tools::run_command(['= corosync-cfgtool','-k', $nodeid]) >> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if= defined($nodeid); >> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 }; >> =C2=A0=20 >=20 > But what if it fails for a different reason than 'CS_ERR_NOT_EXIST'? Sh= ouldn't we match the error? at least that examples is like ENOENT on unlink, an OK error (user could have -k'illed it before that).