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 9DAE87306A for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:49:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 90AA91E4DE for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:49:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vs1-xe30.google.com (mail-vs1-xe30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 563351E4CA for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:49:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe30.google.com with SMTP id g24so2490138vsa.10 for ; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 04:49:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8rxS/S8HZjdLiyx8oPj2RuwqNvaaNPCUO698iy7DVuE=; b=j6mQT8wpb1wGrrAEDtR6dR9IOOnfoc6HJ+1nS+1EzLfeFI8LZuFxqxZGd57pE5SwqQ KChtbUQO5/Ni8eSBIXwafKgWV694YcX/bSUnO0R/VazBXFiaVj5wMjxR/UYjWirdtCq5 bVaBtPql8+kdNMrKfU/6hfoPXu5zxm2rYlVG4zzatwRrg/Zczk/50hDRp+kvNpkW3Ujn tOJ1b/t8YNg/VziWIsdoE2qsmRNbAot6OsTm6RoX5q48+I8P4vzPC3DF3PjtlWVfJouh touNCPbd9FIIcA303PSYvYP8CMLA3cG2c2SR2VnsWPjjSRYp0zofWt1HjtYfy3KpnNf6 WB3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=8rxS/S8HZjdLiyx8oPj2RuwqNvaaNPCUO698iy7DVuE=; b=JPPD/i+rbY5yMlmeRRF5YlBCocMmp8+tAC0n9dVI1+knRf34EmuKUn9ZY6EFwbLxY8 dCT8x1mz3UJ8m8BckF6Qdd5yuUIrfJDbw3Itq+YzndMhXGjhndVf9bP4rc0S6dDZZdv3 YzxonlilTBVbX3JWafBsohicCZ8DHChgEfjyYZVewuRD5d5Ugtpxd3gD8FxaDRDor+hJ VivzCjNqu2TQXkUHX2622HBNY70Rzmj4+GZUL4+VnYRKfj4m1z8e0hjoM3OAnm67fFas kZHHtFTkJHBDEUMJMPcvzHUOmu/8I6Tn2RW/xVoqrImrFJ376SqnqQDV8vu2+E8QWN6Q XN1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532JNUkztKiVXeqJ0bj9xPtDR8LFewKhPb81wjGxOvJ4euZ08ha7 hAJV5N5n683ZtD+vwj1vLr0XaAjlLcE14oFyMCXN9X8Qjg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8y1rwNfqoAl+uqLqikuHGMHcn+2wN/ZROXuKdLzShz61umVV6IrIcRRId9P8Lkh0Rndz5ehlCOije50VCUW0= X-Received: by 2002:a67:7ccf:: with SMTP id x198mr8345413vsc.57.1625485758001; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 04:49:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alex K Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:49:06 +0300 Message-ID: To: Proxmox VE user list X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.050 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message POISEN_SPAM_PILL_4 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Proxmox Fencing X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 11:49:26 -0000 Hi Eneko, On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:30 PM Eneko Lacunza via pve-user < pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Eneko Lacunza > To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:30:41 +0200 > Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Proxmox Fencing > Hi Alex, > > El 5/7/21 a las 13:18, Alex K escribi=C3=B3: > > Hi all, > > > > I'm new to proxmox and trying to setup a 2 + 1 node active/active HA > > cluster on top glusterfs using latest community > pve-manager/6.4-4/337d6701 > > (running kernel: 5.4.106-1-pve). The third node is used for gluster > > arbitration and perhaps I have to configure in it a quorum disk also to > > keep quorum in case of a node failure (not clear yet at my mind, still > > reading the docs). > If you have 3 nodes, you want all them in Proxmox cluster for proper > quorum majority. No need for quorum disk that way. (note that I don't > know how gluster works). > Gluser has a similar concept for quorum so as to keep writes on the storage. Hence I am placing a third node in the setup. Due to cost limitations, the third node has minimal specs and is not meant to host VMs. It is a mini-PC thats why I did not add it as a proxmox host. I am wondering if it is possible to add it as a proxmox host and put a constraint to avoid VMs migrating into it. In this way I will achieve the required quorum levels without adding a full spec host. > I am stuck at the moment at the fencing part of the setup. Reading throug= h > > the docs it seems that I have only the option to setup hardware watchdo= g > > fencing. I would expect to be able to use external media such as IPMI, > > iDrac, HP iLO or UPS based power management (APC) though I can't find a= ny > > info how these are configured at current version of Proxmox. > Currently by default Proxmox uses a software watchdog. I'm not sure if > hardware watchdog support was introduced, others may help with this. > According to the docs it seems there is hardware watchdog option: https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/chapter-ha-manager.html Q+++ hardware watchdog - if not available we fall back to the linux kernel software watchdog (softdog) +++Q > > In case of a network partition and not a node hardware issue, how is th= e > > watchdog going to behave? Is a healthy but disconnected node going to b= e > > power cycled? I will soon proceed with testing as soon as I manage to > setup > > fencing though I wanted to better understand this part of fencing. > > The node that drops out of quorum will be rebooted. If there where > CM/CTs configured for HA in that node, Proxmox will attempt to restart > them in another node. > So soft-fencing is done from ha-manager? How are the other nodes notified that the rebooted host is indeed rebooted so as to start the HA VMs? Thanx for the feedback > Cheers > > Eneko Lacunza > Zuzendari teknikoa | Director t=C3=A9cnico > Binovo IT Human Project > > Tel. +34 943 569 206 | https://www.binovo.es > Astigarragako Bidea, 2 - 2=C2=BA izda. Oficina 10-11, 20180 Oiartzun > > https://www.youtube.com/user/CANALBINOVO > https://www.linkedin.com/company/37269706/ > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Eneko Lacunza via pve-user > To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > Cc: Eneko Lacunza > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:30:41 +0200 > Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Proxmox Fencing > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user >