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 DB159616DB for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:51:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D2216EE7C for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:51:06 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 25077EE6F for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:51:06 +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 E1D6A44869; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:51:05 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Alexandre DERUMIER , dietmar References: <216436814.339545.1599142316781.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <761694744.496919.1599713892772.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <3ee5d9cf-19be-1067-3931-1c54f1c6043a@proxmox.com> <1245358354.508169.1599737684557.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <9e2974b8-3c39-0fda-6f73-6677e3d796f4@proxmox.com> <1928266603.714059.1600059280338.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <803983196.1499.1600067690947@webmail.proxmox.com> <2093781647.723563.1600072074707.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: <88fe5075-870d-9197-7c84-71ae8a25e9dd@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:51:03 +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: <2093781647.723563.1600072074707.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.210 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 -0.001 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:51:36 -0000 On 9/14/20 10:27 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: >> I wonder if something like pacemaker sbd could be implemented in proxmox as extra layer of protection ? > >>> AFAIK Thomas already has patches to implement active fencing. > >>> But IMHO this will not solve the corosync problems.. > > Yes, sure. I'm really to have to 2 differents sources of verification, with different path/software, to avoid this kind of bug. > (shit happens, murphy law ;) would then need at least three, and if one has a bug flooding the network in a lot of setups (not having beefy switches like you ;) the other two will be taken down also, either as memory or the system stack gets overloaded. > > as we say in French "ceinture & bretelles" -> "belt and braces" > > > BTW, > a user have reported new corosync problem here: > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-6-2-corosync-3-rare-and-spontaneous-disruptive-udp-5405-storm-flood.75871 > (Sound like the bug that I have 6month ago, with corosync bug flooding a lof of udp packets, but not the same bug I have here) Did you get in contact with knet/corosync devs about this? Because, it may well be something their stack is better at handling it, maybe there's also really still a bug, or bad behaviour on some edge cases...