Re: [ClusterLabs] Corosync do not send traffic

2016-04-04 Thread Jan Pokorný 
On 30/03/16 17:09 +0200, Roberto Munoz Gomez wrote:
> I am trying to migrate the bindnetaddr option from corosync.conf to
> cluster.conf but couldn't make it work. I want to use this interface for
> corosync traffic.
> 
> inet addr:10.76.125.236  Bcast:10.76.125.239  Mask:255.255.255.240

Looking at cluster.rng schema (/var/lib/cluster/cluster.rng or the
respective counterpart tracked statically in the repository[1]),
you'll want to configure what can be described with XPath
"/cluster/totem/interface/@bindnetaddr", for instance using ccs:

# ccs --sync --exp interface 'cluster:totem' bindnetaddr=10.76.125.224
(value obtained with: ipcalc -n 10.76.125.236 255.255.255.240)

You will likely have to restart the cluster software for this change
to be taken into account.

I haven't tested this will work, it also depends on if you have
pre-existing "interface" element in that place.

> In man cluster.conf says the last octect must be 0.

Here, you are likely confusing cluster.conf with corosync.conf.
Or perhaps something entirely else, as even that man page states
that network address should be used (last octet zeroed is only
for a specific case of /24 netmask, i.e., 255.255.255.0).

> But despite ccs_config validate says it is ok, the cman_tool fails.

ccs_config is a very weak form of a validation and only performs
superficial data type checking, if at all (most of the cases).
It's more a syntactical sanity check + "only defined resource/fence
agents referred?" detector.  Keep that in mind.

[1]
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/cluster.git/tree/config/tools/xml/cluster.rng.in.head?h=cluster-3.2.0#n310

-- 
Jan (Poki)


pgparEuRQCEJo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] DRBD on asymmetric-cluster

2016-04-04 Thread Jason Voorhees 
I started reading "Pacemaker explained" but as it's so depth I didn't
read that section regarding rules yet. I'll take a look at it and test
it before asking anything again.

Thanks a lot Ken

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Ken Gaillot  wrote:
> On 04/02/2016 01:16 AM, Jason Voorhees wrote:
>> Hello guys:
>>
>> I've been recently reading "Pacemaker - Clusters from scratch" and
>> working on a CentOS 7 system with pacemaker 1.1.13, corosync-2.3.4 and
>> drbd84-utils-8.9.5.
>>
>> The PDF instructs how to create a DRBD resource that seems to be
>> automatically started due to a symmetric-cluster setup.
>>
>> However I want to setup an asymmetric-cluster/opt-in
>> (symmetric-cluster=false) but I don't know how to configure a
>> constraint to prefer node1 over node2 to start my DRBD resource as
>> Master (Primary).
>
> I thought location constraints supported role, but that isn't
> documented, so I'm not sure. But it is documented with regard to rules,
> which using pcs might look like:
>
> pcs location clusterdataClone rule \
>   role=master \
>   score=50 \
>   '#uname' eq nodo1
>
> For a lower-level explanation of rules, see
> http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1-pcs/html-single/Pacemaker_Explained/index.html#idm140617356537136
>
>> So far this are my resources and constraints:
>>
>> [root@nodo1 ~]# pcs resource
>>  IPService  (ocf::heartbeat:IPaddr2):   Started nodo1
>>  Web(systemd:httpd):Started nodo1
>>  Master/Slave Set: clusterdataClone [clusterdata]
>>  Stopped: [ nodo1 nodo2 ]
>>
>> [root@nodo1 ~]# pcs constraint
>> Location Constraints:
>>   Resource: IPService
>> Enabled on: nodo2 (score:50)
>> Enabled on: nodo1 (score:100)
>>   Resource: Web
>> Enabled on: nodo2 (score:50)
>> Enabled on: nodo1 (score:100)
>> Ordering Constraints:
>>   start IPService then start Web (kind:Mandatory)
>> Colocation Constraints:
>>   Web with IPService (score:INFINITY)
>>
>> My current DRBD status:
>>
>> [root@nodo1 ~]# drbdadm role clusterdb
>> 0: Failure: (127) Device minor not allocated
>> additional info from kernel:
>> unknown minor
>> Command 'drbdsetup-84 role 0' terminated with exit code 10
>>
>>
>> [root@nodo2 ~]# drbdadm role clusterdb
>> 0: Failure: (127) Device minor not allocated
>> additional info from kernel:
>> unknown minor
>> Command 'drbdsetup-84 role 0' terminated with exit code 10
>>
>>
>> I know that it's possible to configure my cluster as asymmetric and
>> use constraints to avoid a resource running (or becoming master) on
>> certain nodes, but this time I would like to learn how to do it with
>> an opt-in scenario.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your help.
>>
>> P.D. nodo1 & nodo2 are spanish names for node1 and node2
>>
>> ___
>> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
>> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>>
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] [Announce] libqb 1.0 release

2016-04-04 Thread Jan Pokorný 
On 01/04/16 13:59 +0100, Christine Caulfield wrote:
> I am very pleased to announce the 1.0 release of libqb
> 
> [...]
> 
> The current release tarball is here:
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/libqb/releases/download/v1.0/libqb-1.0.tar.gz

One should preferably start at
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/libqb/releases/tag/v1.0
so as to observe that also XZ format tarball is available,
plus the signed checksums for both:

$ gpg --verify-files libqb-1.0.sha256.asc
$ sha256sum -c libqb-1.0.sha256


As a reminder, libqb releases used to be (primarily) located at
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/q/u/quarterback/
but the current stance is that solely GitHub releases/downloads
section of the project serves this purpose
(https://github.com/ClusterLabs/libqb/issues/151#issuecomment-138277436).
Consequently, v1.0 distribution files are missing at the former place.

Chrissie, can you provide a definitive answer this is indeed intended?


For developers employing libqb: there's now a stable URL for the
documentation generated for the newest (pre)release at the moment:
https://clusterlabs.github.io/libqb/CURRENT/doxygen/

Also, as the tradition goes, there are COPR builds for Fedora/EPEL:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jpokorny/libqb/build/173280/
(this time followed by proper releases for Fedora that should be
available sometime next week [unless there is a blocking issue]
or substantially earlier for F23+F24 and rawhide, respectively).

-- 
Jan (Poki)


pgpdFibeIT9cM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] DRBD on asymmetric-cluster

2016-04-04 Thread Ken Gaillot 
On 04/02/2016 01:16 AM, Jason Voorhees wrote:
> Hello guys:
> 
> I've been recently reading "Pacemaker - Clusters from scratch" and
> working on a CentOS 7 system with pacemaker 1.1.13, corosync-2.3.4 and
> drbd84-utils-8.9.5.
> 
> The PDF instructs how to create a DRBD resource that seems to be
> automatically started due to a symmetric-cluster setup.
> 
> However I want to setup an asymmetric-cluster/opt-in
> (symmetric-cluster=false) but I don't know how to configure a
> constraint to prefer node1 over node2 to start my DRBD resource as
> Master (Primary).

I thought location constraints supported role, but that isn't
documented, so I'm not sure. But it is documented with regard to rules,
which using pcs might look like:

pcs location clusterdataClone rule \
  role=master \
  score=50 \
  '#uname' eq nodo1

For a lower-level explanation of rules, see
http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1-pcs/html-single/Pacemaker_Explained/index.html#idm140617356537136

> So far this are my resources and constraints:
> 
> [root@nodo1 ~]# pcs resource
>  IPService  (ocf::heartbeat:IPaddr2):   Started nodo1
>  Web(systemd:httpd):Started nodo1
>  Master/Slave Set: clusterdataClone [clusterdata]
>  Stopped: [ nodo1 nodo2 ]
> 
> [root@nodo1 ~]# pcs constraint
> Location Constraints:
>   Resource: IPService
> Enabled on: nodo2 (score:50)
> Enabled on: nodo1 (score:100)
>   Resource: Web
> Enabled on: nodo2 (score:50)
> Enabled on: nodo1 (score:100)
> Ordering Constraints:
>   start IPService then start Web (kind:Mandatory)
> Colocation Constraints:
>   Web with IPService (score:INFINITY)
> 
> My current DRBD status:
> 
> [root@nodo1 ~]# drbdadm role clusterdb
> 0: Failure: (127) Device minor not allocated
> additional info from kernel:
> unknown minor
> Command 'drbdsetup-84 role 0' terminated with exit code 10
> 
> 
> [root@nodo2 ~]# drbdadm role clusterdb
> 0: Failure: (127) Device minor not allocated
> additional info from kernel:
> unknown minor
> Command 'drbdsetup-84 role 0' terminated with exit code 10
> 
> 
> I know that it's possible to configure my cluster as asymmetric and
> use constraints to avoid a resource running (or becoming master) on
> certain nodes, but this time I would like to learn how to do it with
> an opt-in scenario.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help.
> 
> P.D. nodo1 & nodo2 are spanish names for node1 and node2
> 
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
> 


___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] ClusterLabsAntw: Re: spread out resources

2016-04-04 Thread Ferenc Wágner 
"Ulrich Windl"  writes:

> Actually form my SLES11 SP[1-4] experience, the cluster always
> distributes resources across all available nodes, and only if don't
> want that, I'll have to add constraints. I wonder why that does not
> seem to work for you.

Because I'd like to spread small subsets of the resources (one such
subset is A, B, C and D) independently.
-- 
Feri

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: spread out resources

2016-04-04 Thread Alexandre 
This is true for opt-out clusters. Opt-in cluster only rely on location
constraints.

Regards
Le 4 avr. 2016 08:46, "Ulrich Windl"  a
écrit :

> Hi!
>
> Actually form my SLES11 SP[1-4] experience, the cluster always distributes
> resources across all available nodes, and only if don't want that, I'll
> have to
> add constraints. I wonder why that does not seem to work for you.
>
> Regards,
> Ulrich
>
> >>> Ferenc Wágner  schrieb am 02.04.2016 um 10:28 in
> Nachricht
> <87egao9zyc@lant.ki.iif.hu>:
> > Ken Gaillot  writes:
> >
> >> On 03/30/2016 08:37 PM, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've got a couple of resources (A, B, C, D, ... more than cluster
> nodes)
> >>> that I want to spread out to different nodes as much as possible.  They
> >>> are all the same, there's no distinguished one amongst them.  I tried
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>   
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>   
> >>>   
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> But crm_simulate did not finish with the above in the CIB.
> >>> What's a good way to get this working?
> >>
> >> Per the docs, "A colocated set with sequential=false makes sense only if
> >> there is another set in the constraint. Otherwise, the constraint has no
> >> effect." Using sequential=false would allow another set to depend on all
> >> these resources, without them depending on each other.
> >
> > That was the very idea behind the above colocation constraint: it
> > contains the same group twice.  Yeah, it's somewhat contrived, but I had
> > no other idea with any chance of success.  And this one failed as well.
> >
> >> I haven't actually tried resource sets with negative scores, so I'm not
> >> sure what happens there. With sequential=true, I'd guess that each
> >> resource would avoid the resource listed before it, but not necessarily
> >> any of the others.
> >
> > Probably, but that isn't what I'm after.
> >
> >> By default, pacemaker does spread things out as evenly as possible, so I
> >> don't think anything special is needed.
> >
> > Yes, but only on the scale of all resources.  And I've also got a
> > hundred independent ones, which wash out this global spreading effect if
> > you consider only a select handful.
> >
> >> If you want more control over the assignment, you can look into
> >> placement strategies:
> >
> > We use balanced placement to account for the different memory
> > requirements of the various resources globally.  It would be possible to
> > introduce a new, artifical utilization "dimension" for each resource
> > group we want to spread independently, but this doesn't sound very
> > compelling.  For sets of two resources, a simple negative colocation
> > constraint works very well; it'd be a pity if it wasn't possible to
> > extend this concept to larger sets.
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Feri
> >
> > ___
> > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> > http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >
> > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: spread out resources

2016-04-04 Thread Ulrich Windl 
Hi!

Actually form my SLES11 SP[1-4] experience, the cluster always distributes
resources across all available nodes, and only if don't want that, I'll have to
add constraints. I wonder why that does not seem to work for you.

Regards,
Ulrich

>>> Ferenc Wágner  schrieb am 02.04.2016 um 10:28 in Nachricht
<87egao9zyc@lant.ki.iif.hu>:
> Ken Gaillot  writes:
> 
>> On 03/30/2016 08:37 PM, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
>> 
>>> I've got a couple of resources (A, B, C, D, ... more than cluster nodes)
>>> that I want to spread out to different nodes as much as possible.  They
>>> are all the same, there's no distinguished one amongst them.  I tried
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>>   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> But crm_simulate did not finish with the above in the CIB.
>>> What's a good way to get this working?
>>
>> Per the docs, "A colocated set with sequential=false makes sense only if
>> there is another set in the constraint. Otherwise, the constraint has no
>> effect." Using sequential=false would allow another set to depend on all
>> these resources, without them depending on each other.
> 
> That was the very idea behind the above colocation constraint: it
> contains the same group twice.  Yeah, it's somewhat contrived, but I had
> no other idea with any chance of success.  And this one failed as well.
> 
>> I haven't actually tried resource sets with negative scores, so I'm not
>> sure what happens there. With sequential=true, I'd guess that each
>> resource would avoid the resource listed before it, but not necessarily
>> any of the others.
> 
> Probably, but that isn't what I'm after.
> 
>> By default, pacemaker does spread things out as evenly as possible, so I
>> don't think anything special is needed.
> 
> Yes, but only on the scale of all resources.  And I've also got a
> hundred independent ones, which wash out this global spreading effect if
> you consider only a select handful.
> 
>> If you want more control over the assignment, you can look into
>> placement strategies:
> 
> We use balanced placement to account for the different memory
> requirements of the various resources globally.  It would be possible to
> introduce a new, artifical utilization "dimension" for each resource
> group we want to spread independently, but this doesn't sound very
> compelling.  For sets of two resources, a simple negative colocation
> constraint works very well; it'd be a pity if it wasn't possible to
> extend this concept to larger sets.
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Feri
> 
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org 
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
> 
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org 
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf 
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org 




___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org