Hi Anders,
while testing the patch in the rolling upgrade scenario from 4.3 --> 4.4
with SC-1(active), SC-2, PL-3:
Upgraded PL-3 first, started cluster services, cluster services started
sucesfully.
Upgraded SC-2(standby), started cluster service, cluster services
started sucesfully.
switchover is initiated
Upgrade SC-1 and started cluster services, following error is seen ,
SC-1 is not joining the cluster:
SC-2 :
====
Nov 4 16:42:36 smoke-sc2 kernel: [17400.537787] TIPC: Established link
<1.1.2:eth3-1.1.1:eth3> on network plane A
Nov 4 16:42:36 smoke-sc2 osafimmd[9462]: NO New IMMND process is on
STANDBY Controller at 2010f
Nov 4 16:42:36 smoke-sc2 osafimmd[9462]: NO Extended intro from node 2010f
Nov 4 16:42:36 smoke-sc2 osafimmd[9462]: WA PBE not configured at first
attached SC-immnd, but Pbe is configured for immnd at 2010f - rejecting node
Nov 4 16:42:36 smoke-sc2 osafimmd[9462]: WA Error returned from
processing message err:2 msg-type:2
Nov 4 16:42:36 smoke-sc2 osafimmnd[9472]: NO Global discard node
received for nodeId:2010f pid:5212
Nov 4 16:42:52 smoke-sc2 osafimmd[9462]: NO New IMMND process is on
STANDBY Controller at 2010f
Nov 4 16:42:52 smoke-sc2 osafimmd[9462]: NO Extended intro from node 2010f
Nov 4 16:42:52 smoke-sc2 osafimmd[9462]: WA PBE not configured at first
attached SC-immnd, but Pbe is configured for immnd at 2010f - rejecting node
Nov 4 16:42:52 smoke-sc2 osafimmd[9462]: WA Error returned from
processing message err:2 msg-type:2
Nov 4 16:42:52 smoke-sc2 osafimmnd[9472]: NO Global discard node
received for nodeId:2010f pid:5234
SC-1:
====
Nov 4 16:42:44 smoke-sc1 osafrded[5182]: Started
Nov 4 16:42:44 smoke-sc1 osafrded[5182]: NO rde@2020f has active state
=> Standby role
Nov 4 16:42:44 smoke-sc1 osaffmd[5192]: Started
Nov 4 16:42:45 smoke-sc1 osafimmd[5202]: Started
Nov 4 16:42:45 smoke-sc1 osafimmnd[5212]: Started
Nov 4 16:42:45 smoke-sc1 osafimmnd[5212]: NO Persistent Back-End
capability configured, Pbe file:imm.db
Nov 4 16:42:45 smoke-sc1 osafimmnd[5212]: NO SERVER STATE:
IMM_SERVER_ANONYMOUS --> IMM_SERVER_CLUSTER_WAITING
Nov 4 16:42:45 smoke-sc1 osafimmnd[5212]: ER IMMND forced to restart on
order from IMMD, exiting
Nov 4 16:42:45 smoke-sc1 opensafd[5151]: ER Failed DESC:IMMND
Nov 4 16:42:45 smoke-sc1 opensafd[5151]: ER Going for recovery
Nov 4 16:42:45 smoke-sc1 opensafd[5151]: ER Trying To RESPAWN
/usr/lib64/opensaf/clc-cli/osaf-immnd attempt #1
Nov 4 16:42:45 smoke-sc1 opensafd[5151]: ER Sending SIGKILL to IMMND,
pid=5207
In the upgrade case the older 4.3 will not have information related to
dir/xml-file/pbe-file. The logic in IMMD for verifying the configuration
has to be changed for upgrade:
if(evt->info.ctrl_msg.pbeFile.buf) {
LOG_WA("PBE not configured at first attached
SC-immnd, but Pbe "
"is configured for immnd at %x -
rejecting node",
node_info->immnd_key);
immd_kill_node(cb, node_info);
proc_rc = NCSCC_RC_FAILURE;
goto done;
}
/Neel.
On Friday 25 October 2013 06:18 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote:
> Summary: IMM: IMMD file verification made upgrade safe [#596]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): (#596)
> Peer Reviewer(s): Neel
> Pull request to:
> Affected branch(es): default(4.4)
> Development branch:
>
> --------------------------------
> Impacted area Impact y/n
> --------------------------------
> Docs n
> Build system n
> RPM/packaging n
> Configuration files n
> Startup scripts n
> SAF services n
> OpenSAF services n
> Core libraries n
> Samples n
> Tests n
> Other n
>
>
> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> changeset 675bf5f18f02080d06881df9a5d74a92fa1f9ac2
> Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:38:15 +0200
>
> IMM: IMMD file verification made upgrade safe [#596]
>
> The protocol for communicating IMMND file configuration to the active
> IMMD
> and for checkpointing the same from active to standby IMMD has been
> elaborated and made safer. In particular, an upgrade from pre 4.4.
> OpenSAF
> to OpenSAF 4.4 is now possible.
>
> The file configuration consists of: (1) The directory for peristent
> storage,
> (2) The xml file to load from if PBE is not enabled or if no PBE file
> exists, (3) The pbe file base-name to load from if PBE is enabled.
>
> The IMMNDs also communicate epoch and PBE enabled/disabled state to the
> IMMD
> and the active IMMD checkpoints this to the standby.
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> ------------------
> osaf/libs/common/immsv/immsv_evt.c | 12 +++---
> osaf/libs/common/immsv/include/immsv_evt.h | 14 +++++++-
> osaf/services/saf/immsv/README | 19 +++++++----
> osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_evt.c | 87
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_mbcsv.c | 6 +-
> osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_sbevt.c | 43 ++++++++++++++----------
> osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 11 +++++-
> osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_proc.c | 68
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 8 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -----------------
> Clester restart, failover, switchover, upgrade from 4.2 or 4.3 to this
> version.
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --------------------------
> Rolling upgrade to reach this version shall not be prevented by the IMMD
> checking
> of consistent IMMND file configration.
>
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -------------------------
> Ack from Neel.
>
>
> Arch Built Started Linux distro
> -------------------------------------------
> mips n n
> mips64 n n
> x86 n n
> x86_64 n n
> powerpc n n
> powerpc64 n n
>
>
> Reviewer Checklist:
> -------------------
> [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
>
>
> Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
>
> ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
> that need proper data filled in.
>
> ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
>
> ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
>
> ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
>
> ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
>
> ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
>
> ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
> (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
>
> ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
> Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
>
> ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
>
> ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
> like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
>
> ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
> cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
>
> ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
> too much content into a single commit.
>
> ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
>
> ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
> Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
>
> ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
> commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
>
> ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
> of what has changed between each re-send.
>
> ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
> comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
>
> ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
>
> ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
> the threaded patch review.
>
> ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
> for in-service upgradability test.
>
> ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
> do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that
developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white
paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep
Android apps secure.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
