From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
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 4ED19B30D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:36:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2F5761A24F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:36:44 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:36:42 +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 643D04229B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:36:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <d44abd56-c235-3eb3-b74e-206cb110d0e5@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:36:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230629135935.62588-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<a8f1c8b8-89ae-93cc-5c8d-6c75522401e0@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <a8f1c8b8-89ae-93cc-5c8d-6c75522401e0@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.001 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
NICE_REPLY_A -0.089 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC cluster 1/2] pvecm: updatecerts: allow
specifying time to wait for quorum via CLI argument
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 14:36:44 -0000
Am 29.06.23 um 16:26 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> Am 29/06/2023 um 15:59 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
>> Useful for the updatecerts call triggered via the ExecStartPre hook
>> for pveproxy.service.
>>
>> When starting a node that's part of a cluster, there is a time window
>> between the start of pve-cluster.service and when quorum is reached
>> (from the node's perspective). pveproxy.service is ordered after
>> pve-cluster.service, but that does not prevent the ExecStartPre hook
>> from being executed before the node is part of the quorate partition.
>> The pvecm updatecerts command won't do anything without quorum.
>>
>> In particular, it might happen that the base directories for observed
>> files will not get created during/after the upgrade from Proxmox VE 7
>> to 8 (reported in the community forum [0] and reproduced right away in
>> a virtual test cluster).
>>
>> This parameter will allow to increase the chances for successful
>> execution of the hook.
>>
>> [0]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/129644/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> src/PVE/CLI/pvecm.pm | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>
>
> Hmm, I would just do something like (untested and needs importing Time::HiRes):
>
>
> @@ -576,6 +578,11 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
> # IO (on /etc/pve) which can hang (uninterruptedly D state). That'd be
> # no-good for ExecStartPre as it fails the whole service in this case
> PVE::Tools::run_fork_with_timeout(30, sub {
> + for (my $i = 0; !PVE::Cluster::check_cfs_quorum(1); $i++) {
> + print "waiting for pmxcfs mount to appear and get quorate...\n" if $i % 50 == 0;
> + usleep(100 * 1000);
> + $i++;
> + }
> PVE::Cluster::Setup::updatecerts_and_ssh($param->@{qw(force silent)});
> PVE::Cluster::prepare_observed_file_basedirs();
> });
>
>
> after all any user or tooling calling this want's it to happen, so waiting until
> the timeout seems sensible enough as hard coded default to me..
The issue here is that it would delay the pveproxy.service start a full
30 seconds when a node can't get quorum (e.g. after all nodes in a
cluster were down). Is that tolerable?