On 10 Jun 2014, at 9:56 am, Gabriel Gomiz <ggo...@cooperativaobrera.coop> wrote:
> On 05/30/2014 12:12 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> There have been some big steps forward in cib for the next upstream release >> (its basically 2 orders of magnitude faster/more efficient). >> Current versions will regularly max out a core, albeit for hopefully short >> periods of time depending on the cluster size: >> >> https://twitter.com/beekhof/status/412913549837475840 >> >> Its also a vicious circle - a busy cib leads to failed resource actions, >> which leads to recovery operations, which leads to more work for the cib. >> >> Looking at the size of your cluster, 87 resources on 4 nodes... I can >> imagine that benefitting greatly from the coming version. >> >> I notice you're using a rhel package, are you a RH customer or is this on a >> clone? > Clone. CentOS. Ah ok. In that case your best bet is to keep using upstream until 1.1.12 filters down to RHEL and then CentOS >> Also, did anything specific happen prior to the CIB going nuts? >>> Only thing that I can think of is a lot of calls to crm_mon via a shell >>> script that we use to check >>> which resource groups each node is servicing (attached if you're curious). >>> We use this script to apply puppet manifests conditionally to our nodes and >>> do some monitoring. Also >>> we have cron jobs checking via the script if the resource group is active >>> before running. >>> Maybe the sum of that calls can make cib process very busy...? >> If you were running it every second... maybe. But something is _seriously_ >> wrong if -KILL isn't working! >> I wonder how much memory it was using at the time... perhaps the kernel was >> trying to write a huge core file? > I don't think so. It was several days in that state. > > Is there any way to check if a node has a resource group via a single simple > call to crm resource? > Because I didn't found a way we had to make a script that parse the entire > crm_mon output. >> >>> Anyway, I've built 1.1.12 rc1 RPMS and this morning I've upgraded the >>> cluster. Will let you know if >>> there is something weird after this upgrade. >> Ok, I'd be interested to hear your feedback. > > 1.1.12 rc1 working flawlessly until now. So it looks like it's fixed in that > version. > > Thanks! Glad to hear we could give you a solution :)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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
