10.07.2013 08:13, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > On 10/07/2013, at 2:15 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 10.07.2013 07:05, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>> >>> On 10/07/2013, at 2:04 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 10.07.2013 03:39, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 10/07/2013, at 1:51 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 03.07.2013 19:31, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 07:53:52AM +0300, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >>>>>>>> 01.07.2013 18:29, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:29:31PM +0300, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to look if it is now safe to delete non-running nodes >>>>>>>>>> (corosync 2.3, pacemaker HEAD, crmsh tip). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> # crm node delete v02-d >>>>>>>>>> WARNING: 2: crm_node bad format: 7 v02-c >>>>>>>>>> WARNING: 2: crm_node bad format: 8 v02-d >>>>>>>>>> WARNING: 2: crm_node bad format: 5 v02-a >>>>>>>>>> WARNING: 2: crm_node bad format: 6 v02-b >>>>>>>>>> INFO: 2: node v02-d not found by crm_node >>>>>>>>>> INFO: 2: node v02-d deleted >>>>>>>>>> # >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, I expect that crmsh still doesn't follow latest changes to >>>>>>>>>> 'crm_node >>>>>>>>>> -l'. Although node seems to be deleted correctly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For reference, output of crm_node -l is: >>>>>>>>>> 7 v02-c >>>>>>>>>> 8 v02-d >>>>>>>>>> 5 v02-a >>>>>>>>>> 6 v02-b >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This time the node state was empty. Or it's missing altogether. >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how's that supposed to be interpreted. We test the >>>>>>>>> output of crm_node -l just to make sure that the node is not >>>>>>>>> online. Perhaps we need to use some other command. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Likely it shows everything from a corosync nodelist. >>>>>>>> After I deleted the node from everywhere except corosync, list is still >>>>>>>> the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK. This patch changes the interface to crm_node to use the >>>>>>> "list partition" option (-p). Could you please test it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Not enough. Even worse than before. I tested todays tip as it >>>>>> includes that patch with merge of Andrew's public and private master >>>>>> heads. >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> [root@v02-b ~]# crm node show >>>>>> v02-a(5): normal >>>>>> standby: off >>>>>> virtualization: true >>>>>> $id: nodes-5 >>>>>> v02-b(6): normal >>>>>> standby: off >>>>>> virtualization: true >>>>>> v02-c(7): normal >>>>>> standby: off >>>>>> virtualization: true >>>>>> v02-d(8): normal(offline) >>>>>> standby: off >>>>>> virtualization: true >>>>>> [root@v02-b ~]# crm node delete v02-d >>>>>> ERROR: according to crm_node, node v02-d is still active >>>>>> [root@v02-b ~]# crm_node -p >>>>>> v02-c v02-d v02-a v02-b >>>>>> [root@v02-b ~]# crm_node -l >>>>>> 7 v02-c >>>>>> 8 v02-d >>>>>> 5 v02-a >>>>>> 6 v02-b >>>>>> [root@v02-b ~]# >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> >>>>>> That is after I stopped node, lowered votequorum expected_votes (with >>>>>> corosync-quorumtool) and deleted v02-d from a cmap nodelist. >>>>>> >>>>>> corosync-cmapctl still shows runtime info about deleted node as well: >>>>>> runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.8.config_version (u64) = 0 >>>>>> runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.8.ip (str) = r(0) ip(10.5.4.55) >>>>>> runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.8.join_count (u32) = 1 >>>>>> runtime.totem.pg.mrp.srp.members.8.status (str) = left >>>>>> And it is not allowed to delete that keys. >>>>>> >>>>>> crm_node -R did the job (nothing left in the CIB), but, v02-d still >>>>>> appears in its output for both -p and -l. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew, I copy you directly because above is probably to you. Shouldn't >>>>>> crm_node some-how show that stopped node is deleted from a corosync >>>>>> nodelist? >>>>> >>>>> Which stack is this? >>>> >>>> corosync 2.3 with nodelist and udpu. >>> >>> I assume its possible, but crm_node isn't smart enough to do that yet. >>> Feel like writing a patch? :) >> >> Shouldn't it just skip offline nodes for -p? >> > > Worse. It appears to be asking pacemakerd instead of corosync or crmd. >
Hm. I do not believe I'm able to refactor it then... _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
