On 06/27/2013 07:02 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:52:00PM -0400, Digimer wrote: >> This question appears to be the same issue asked here: >> >> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2013-June/018650.html >> >> In my case, I have two fence methods per node; IPMI first with >> action="reboot" and, if that fails, two PDUs (one backing each side of >> the node's redundant PSUs). >> >> Initially I setup the PDUs as action "reboot" figuring that the >> fence_toplogy tied them together, so pacemaker would call "pdu1:port1; >> off -> pdu2:port1; off; (verify both are off) -> pdu1:port1; on -> >> pdu2:port1; on". >> >> This didn't happen though. It called 'pdu1:port1; reboot' then >> "pdu2:port1; reboot", so the first PSU in the node had it's power back >> before the second PSU lost power, meaning the node never powered off. > > I'm not sure if that's supported.
Unless I am misunderstood, beekhof indicated that it is/should be. >> So next I tried; >> >> pdu1:port1; off -> pdu2:port1; off -> pdu1:port1; on -> pdu1:port1; on >> >> However, this seemed to have actually done; >> >> pdu1:port1; reboot -> pdu2:port1; reboot -> pdu1:port1; reboot -> >> pdu1:port1; reboot >> >> So again, the node never lost power to both PSUs at the same time, so >> the node didn't power off. >> >> This makes PDU fencing unreliable. I know beekhof said: >> >> "My point would be that action=off is not the correct way to configure >> what you're trying to do." >> >> in the other thread, but there was no elaborating on what *is* the right >> way. So if neither approach works, what is the proper way for configure >> PDU fencing when you have two different PDUs backing either PSU? > > The fence action needs to be defined in the cluster properties > (crm_config/cluster_property_set in XML): > > # crm configure property stonith-action=off > > See the output of: > > $ crm ra info pengine > > for the PE metadata and explanation of properties. In irc last night, beekhof mentioned that action="..." is ignored and replaced. However, it would appear that pcmk_reboot_action="..." should force the issue. I'm planning to test this today. >> I don't want to disable "reboot" globally because I still want the >> IPMI based fencing to do action="reboot". > > I don't think it is possible to define a per-resource fencing > action. > >> If I just do "off", then the >> node will not power back on after a successful fence. This is better >> than nothing, but still quite sub-optimal. > > Yes, if you want to start the cluster stack automatically on > reboot. Anyway, I think that it would be preferred to let a human > check why the node got fenced before letting it join the cluster > again. In that case, one just needs to boot the host manually. > > Thanks, > > Dejan I don't want the cluster stack to start on boot, so I disable pacemaker/corosync. However, I do want the node to power back on so that I can log into it when the alarms go off. Yes, I could log into the good node, manually unfence/boot it and then log in, but this adds minutes to the MTTR that I would realllly like to avoid. cheers -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
