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 6130A6A2E9 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:05:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2DCFE21CFC for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:05:03 +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 id A912021CED for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:05:02 +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 6F86F448DD for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:05:02 +0200 (CEST) To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, d.whyte@proxmox.com References: <20210915133618.143859-1-d.whyte@proxmox.com> <20210915133618.143859-5-d.whyte@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:04:57 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210915133618.143859-5-d.whyte@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.184 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 -1.698 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-docs 5/6] pvecm: add note about corosync killnode error 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, 16 Sep 2021 08:05:33 -0000 Am 15.09.21 um 15:36 schrieb Dylan Whyte: > Mentions the misleading error message shown, when deleting a node, > because of the failing command: > corosync-cfgtool -k x > > Some forum users were confused by this, and believed that the removal of > the node was unsuccessful. > > Signed-off-by: Dylan Whyte > --- > pvecm.adoc | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/pvecm.adoc b/pvecm.adoc > index af9cf33..e7140a6 100644 > --- a/pvecm.adoc > +++ b/pvecm.adoc > @@ -340,6 +340,11 @@ After powering off the node hp4, we can safely remove it from the cluster. > Killing node 4 > ---- > > +NOTE: At this point, it is possible that you will receive an error message > +stating `Could not kill node (error = CS_ERR_NOT_EXIST)`. This does not > +signify an actual failure in the deletion of the node, but rather a failure in > +corosync trying to kill an offline node. Thus, it can be safely ignored. > + Currently our API call/CLI command fails in this scenario. Can we reliably detect the situation and not run corosync-cfgtool -k x then? Or always run it to be sure, but gracefully catch the specific error and print it as a warning (maybe adding something like "- node already offline?") instead of failing? > Use `pvecm nodes` or `pvecm status` to check the node list again. It should > look something like: > >