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 0EAF77AFE8 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:39:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 049541D266 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:39:01 +0200 (CEST) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:39:00 +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 ED60A43DD6 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:38:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:38:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:103.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/103.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20220707082152.1578593-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220707082152.1578593-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.004 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: Re: [PATCH cluster] corosync.conf sync: reload after sleep 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: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 09:39:01 -0000 On 07/07/2022 10:21, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > if processing a corosync.conf update is delayed on a single node, > reloading the config too early can have disastrous results (loss of > token and HA fence). artifically delay the reload command by one second > to allow update propagation in most scenarios until a proper solution > (e.g., using broadcasting/querying of locally deployed config versions) > has been developed and fully tested. > > reported on the forum: > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/expanding-cluster-reboots-all-vms.110903/ > > reported issue can be reproduced by deploying a patched pmxcfs on > non-reloading node that sleeps before writing out a broadcasted > corosync.conf update and adding a node to the cluster, leading to the > following sequence of events: > > - corosync config reload command received > - corosync config update written out > > which causes that particular node to have a different view of cluster > topology, causing all corosync communication to fail for all nodes until > corosync on the affected node is restarted (the on-disk config is > correct after all, just not in effect). > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler > --- > tested new cluster creation from scratch, and cluster expansion (on a > test PVE cluster with HA enabled and running guests, to simulate some > load). > > data/src/dcdb.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > applied, thanks! for now the simplest stop gap, any more elaborate mechanism may be better suited for a major release anyway, upgrade-wise.