Try to add this in corosync.conf in one of the nodes: token_retransmit: 200
Em ter., 7 de jan. de 2025 às 08:24, Iztok Gregori <iztok.greg...@elettra.eu> escreveu: > Hi to all! > > I need some help to understand a situation (cluster reboot) which > happened to us previous week. We are running a 17 nodes Proxmox cluster > with a separate Ceph cluster for storage (no hyper-convergence). > > We have to upgrade a stack a 2 switches and in order to avoid any > downtime we decided to prepare a new (temporary) stack and move the > links from one switch to the other. Our procedure was the following: > > - Migrate all the VM from node. > - Unplug the links from the old switch. > - Plug the links to the temporary switch. > - Wait till the node is available again in the cluster. > - Repeat. > > We have to move 8 nodes from one switch to the other. The first 4 nodes > went smoothly, but when we did plug the 5th node into the new switch ALL > the nodes which have configured HA VMs rebooted! > > From the Corosync logs I see that the Token wasn't received and because > of that watchdog-mux wasn't updated causing the node reboot. > > Here are the Corosync logs during the procedure and before the nodes > restarted. It was captured from a node which didn't reboot (pve-ha-lrm: > idle): > > > 12:51:57 [KNET ] link: host: 18 link: 0 is down > > 12:51:57 [KNET ] host: host: 18 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 1) > > 12:51:57 [KNET ] host: host: 18 has no active links > > 12:52:02 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9562 ms > > 12:52:16 [QUORUM] Sync members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > 17 19 > > 12:52:16 [QUORUM] Sync left[1]: 18 > > 12:52:16 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d29) was formed. Members left: 18 > > 12:52:16 [TOTEM ] Failed to receive the leave message. failed: 18 > > 12:52:16 [QUORUM] Members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 > > 12:52:16 [MAIN ] Completed service synchronization, ready to provide > service. > > 12:52:42 [KNET ] rx: host: 18 link: 0 is up > > 12:52:42 [KNET ] host: host: 18 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 1) > > 12:52:50 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9567 ms > > 12:53:01 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 20324 ms > > 12:53:11 [QUORUM] Sync members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > 17 19 > > 12:53:11 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d35) was formed. Members > > 12:53:20 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9570 ms > > 12:53:31 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 20326 ms > > 12:53:41 [QUORUM] Sync members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > 17 19 > > 12:53:41 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d41) was formed. Members > > 12:53:50 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9570 ms > > And here you can find the logs of a successfully completed "procedure": > > > 12:19:12 [KNET ] link: host: 19 link: 0 is down > > 12:19:12 [KNET ] host: host: 19 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 1) > > 12:19:12 [KNET ] host: host: 19 has no active links > > 12:19:17 [TOTEM ] Token has not been received in 9562 ms > > 12:19:31 [QUORUM] Sync members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > 17 18 > > 12:19:31 [QUORUM] Sync left[1]: 19 > > 12:19:31 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d21) was formed. Members left: 19 > > 12:19:31 [TOTEM ] Failed to receive the leave message. failed: 19 > > 12:19:31 [QUORUM] Members[16]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 > > 12:19:31 [MAIN ] Completed service synchronization, ready to provide > service. > > 12:19:47 [KNET ] rx: host: 19 link: 0 is up > > 12:19:47 [KNET ] host: host: 19 (passive) best link: 0 (pri: 1) > > 12:19:50 [QUORUM] Sync members[17]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > 17 18 19 > > 12:19:50 [QUORUM] Sync joined[1]: 19 > > 12:19:50 [TOTEM ] A new membership (1.d25) was formed. Members joined: 19 > > 12:19:51 [QUORUM] Members[17]: 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 > 19 > > 12:19:51 [MAIN ] Completed service synchronization, ready to provide > service. > > Comparing the 2 logs I can see that after the "host: 18" link was found > active again the token was not received, but I cannot figure out what > went different in this case. > > I have 2 possible culprits: > > 1. NETWORK > > The cluster network is backed up with 5 Extreme Networks switches, 3 > stacks of two x870 (100GBE), 1 stack of two x770 (40GBE) and one > temporary stack of two 7720-32C (100GBE). The switches are linked > together by a 2x LACP bond, and the 99% of the cluster communication are > on 100GBE. > > The hosts are connected to the network with different speed interfaces: > 10GBE (1 node), 25GBE (4 nodes), 40GBE (1 node), 100GBE (11 nodes). All > the nodes are bonded, the Corosync network (is the same as the > management one) is defined on a bridge interface on the bonded link > (configuration is almost the same on all nodes, some older ones have > balance-xor the other have lacp as bonding mode). > > Is it possible that there is something wrong with the network, but I > cannot find a probable cause. From the data that I have, I don't see > nothing special, no links were saturated, no error logged... > > 2. COROSYNC > > The cluster is running a OLD version of Proxmox (7.1-12) with Corosync > 3.1.5-pve2. Is possible that there is a problem in Corosync fixed in a > later release. I did a quick search but I didn't found anything. The > cluster upgrade is on my to-do list (but the list is huge, so it will > not be done tomorrow). > > We are running only one Corosync network which is the same as the > management/migration one, but different from the one for > client/storage/backup. The configuration is very basic, I think is the > default one, I can provide it if needed. > > I checked the Corosync stats and the average latency is around 150 > (microseconds?) along all links on all nodes. > > ==== > > In general it can be a combination of the 2 above or something > completely different. > > Do you have some advice on where to look to debug further? > > I can provide more information if needed. > > Thanks a lot! > > Iztok > > > > -- > Iztok Gregori > ICT Systems and Services > Elettra - Sincrotrone Trieste S.C.p.A. > Telephone: +39 040 3758948 > http://www.elettra.eu > > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user > > _______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list pve-user@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
