Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

[Nikhil Utane]

I simplified when I called it as a service. Essentially it is a complete
system.
It is an LTE eNB solution. It provides LTE service (service A) and now we
need to provide redundancy for another different but related service
(service B). The catch being, the LTE redundancy solution will be tied to
one operator whereas the other service can span across multiple operators.
Therefore ideally we want two completely independent clusters since
different set of nodes will form the two clusters.
Now what I am thinking is, to run additional instance of Pacemaker +
Corosync in a container which can then notify the service B on host machine
to start or stop it's service. That way my CIB file will be independent and
I can run corosync on different interfaces.

Workable right?

-Regards
Nikhil


On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ken Gaillot  wrote:

> On 03/22/2017 05:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > Hi Ulrich,
> >
> > It's not an option unfortunately.
> > Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the
> > services (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A
> > running on some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes
> > as cluster B.
> > The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and
> > service B have to be independent of each other.
> >
> > Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other
> > product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).
> >
> > -Regards
> > Nikhil
>
> Instead of containerizing pacemaker, why don't you containerize or
> virtualize the services, and have pacemaker manage the containers/VMs?
>
> Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in
> pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or tomorrow.
>
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > >>> Nikhil Utane  > > schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
> 07:48 in
> > Nachricht
> >  > >:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent
> support
> > > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It
> has
> > > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our
> Redundancy
> > > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> > >
> > > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services
> (we can
> > > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster
> communication for
> > > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for
> service B
> > > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we
> do not
> > > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen
> by
> > > Service B and vice-versa.
> > >
> > > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters.
> From
> > > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and
> Corosync
> > > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two
> isolated
> >
> > You conclude from two services that should not see each other that
> > you need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> > If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and
> > two independent clusters.
> > Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem
> > of fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will always be
> > surprised badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging you want
> that!
> >
> > > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> > > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker
> >  it looks do-able.
> > > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that
> it can be
> > > done.
> >
> > Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
> >
> > >
> > > Please share your views if you have already done this and if there
> are any
> > > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> > >
> > > -Thanks
> > > Nikhil
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://lists.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://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

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

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Running two independent clusters

[Nikhil Utane]

I need 2 clusters to be running independently of each other on same node.

-Nikhil

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Ulrich Windl <
ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:

> >>> Nikhil Utane  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
> 11:23 in
> Nachricht
> :
> > Hi Ulrich,
> >
> > It's not an option unfortunately.
> > Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the services
> > (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A running on
> > some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes as cluster
> B.
> > The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and
> > service B have to be independent of each other.
> >
> > Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other
> > product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).
>
> But why do you need two pacemakers then?
>
> >
> > -Regards
> > Nikhil
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl <
> > ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> >
> >> >>> Nikhil Utane  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
> >> 07:48 in
> >> Nachricht
> >> :
> >> > Hi All,
> >> >
> >> > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent
> support
> >> > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has
> >> > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy
> >> > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> >> >
> >> > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> >> > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we
> can
> >> > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication
> >> for
> >> > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for
> service B
> >> > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do
> not
> >> > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by
> >> > Service B and vice-versa.
> >> >
> >> > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters.
> From
> >> > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and
> >> Corosync
> >> > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two
> >> isolated
> >>
> >> You conclude from two services that should not see each other that you
> >> need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> >> If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and two
> >> independent clusters.
> >> Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem of
> >> fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will always be surprised
> >> badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging you want that!
> >>
> >> > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> >> > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker it looks
> do-able.
> >> > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it
> can
> >> be
> >> > done.
> >>
> >> Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are
> >> any
> >> > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> >> >
> >> > -Thanks
> >> > Nikhil
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> >> http://lists.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://lists.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://lists.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: CIB configuration: role with many expressions - error 203

[Radoslaw Garbacz]

Thanks, just found that out as well.

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Ken Gaillot  wrote:

> On 03/22/2017 09:26 AM, Radoslaw Garbacz wrote:
> > I have tried also as 'boolean_op', sorry did not mention this in the
> > original post (just as a remark the documentation for pacemaker has both
> > forms).
>
> *smacks forehead*
>
> Yep, the documentation needs to be fixed. You were right the first time,
> it's "boolean-op" with a dash.
>
> Looking at your example again, I think the problem is that you're using
> the same ID for both expressions. The ID must be unique.
>
> >
> > To make it work I have to remove additional "" and leave
> > only one.
> >
> > To summarize:
> > - having no "boolean..." attribute and a single "expression" - works
> > - having "boolean-op" and a single "expression" - works
> >
> > - having "boolean_op" and a single "expression" - does not work
> > - having either "boolean-op" or "boolean_op" or no such phrase at all
> > with more than one "expression" - does not work
> >
> >
> >
> > I have found the reason: expressions IDs within a rule is the same, once
> > I made it unique it works.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Ulrich Windl
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > >>> Ken Gaillot >
> > schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 00:18 in Nachricht
> > <94b7e5fd-cb65-4775-71df-ca8983629...@redhat.com
> > >:
> > > On 03/21/2017 11:20 AM, Radoslaw Garbacz wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I have a problem when creating rules with many expressions:
> > >>
> > >>  
> > >>  > >> boolean-op="and">
> > >>type="string"
> > >> id="on_nodes_dbx_first_head-expr" value="Active"/>
> > >>type="string"
> > >> id="on_nodes_dbx_first_head-expr" value="AH"/>
> > >> 
> > >>   
> > >>
> > >> Result:
> > >> Call cib_replace failed (-203): Update does not conform to the
> > >> configured schema
> > >>
> > >> Everything works when I remove "boolean-op" attribute and leave
> only one
> > >> expression.
> > >> What do I do wrong when creating rules?
> > >
> > > boolean_op
> > >
> > > Underbar not dash :-)
> >
> > Good spotting, but I think a more useful error message would be
> > desired ;-)
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Pacemaker 1.1.16-1.el6
> > >> Written by Andrew Beekhof
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thank in advance for any help,
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Radoslaw Garbacz
> > >> XtremeData Incorporated
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> > 
> > > http://lists.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  Users@clusterlabs.org>
> > http://lists.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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Radoslaw Garbacz
> > XtremeData Incorporated
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> > http://lists.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://lists.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
>



-- 
Best Regards,

Radoslaw Garbacz
XtremeData Incorporated
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.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] [Announce] clufter v0.70.0 released

[Jan Pokorný]

I am happy to announce that clufter, a tool/library for transforming
and analyzing cluster configuration formats, got its version 0.70.0
tagged and released (incl. signature using my 60BCBB4F5CD7F9EF key):


or alternative (original) location:



The updated test suite for this version is also provided:

or alternatively:


Changelog highlights for v0.70.0 (also available as a tag message):

- bug fix, enhancement and, foremostly, Python 3 compatibility release
- bug fixes:
  . since v0.59.7, {ccs,pcs}2pcscmd commands were meant to emit
hashbangs so as to make it clear which shell (e.g. bash if its
extensions are relied upon) the suggested scripts should be run
under, but alas, exclamation mark has been accidentally missing
[related rhbz#1381531]
  . invocations like "clufter ccs2pcscmd | bash -x", despite being
discouraged (review is needed for any nontrivial case, anyway),
if "pcs cluster auth" part interactively prompting credentials
was part of the run, they would be obtained from the piped script
under interpreter's execution itself due to the way the descriptors
are inherited; now there is an explicit stdin/stdout redirect
against /dev/tty in place to prevent such undesired side-effect
- functional changes:
  . owing to the internal overhaul, *2pcscmd commands now properly
adapt to whether the output is directed to a terminal or not
(including piping to another command) with regards to colorizing
and text-wrapping for reasonable line lengths unless overridden
with explicit switches
  . commands dealing with XML format (at some internal, not necessarily
user-facing phase; covers all *2pcs* ones) are now proofed so as
to preserve XML attribute ordering, leading to consistent results
(desired way beyond internal test suite)
  . better diagnostics are now provided for some previously neglected
error conditions
- feature highlight: Python 3 support (-> minor version bump so high)
  . beside Python 2.6, clufter project now strives to support 3.2+
as well; brand new compatibility with the latter was casually
and unit tested (the suite was also adapted to support both),
but some corner cases may have not been hit yet, hence this
class of bug reports is especially appreciated
  . for the clufter as a library users: under Python 3, "bytestring"
protocol now, due to a strict dichotomy, indeed means "passed as
bytes (or compatible) type" (if the contrary is observed, it is
a bug to be fixed)
  . *2pcscmd commands now state also the Python interpreter in the
initial informative comment block to ease the troubleshooting
in the light of newly introduced dual Python 2/3 support
  . so-called external plugins are now implicitly searched also in
additional, Python interpreter agnostic path intended primarily
for plugins maintaining dual Python 2/3 compatibility (in the same
vein as core clufter as of this release)
  . meta-spec prescribing a suggested RPM packaging in a generic way
now encompasses the above point as well as it offers python3-clufter
subpackage, and in turn factors some shared files to other new
subpackages (clufter-bin, clufter-common)

* * *

The public repository (notably master and next branches) is currently at

(rather than ).

Official, signed releases can be found at
 or, alternatively, at

(also beware, automatic git archives preserve a "dev structure").

Natively packaged in Fedora (python-clufter, clufter-cli, ...).

Issues & suggestions can be reported at either of (regardless if Fedora)
,
.


Happy clustering/high-availing :)

-- 
Jan (Poki)


pgpyBD77xTsFi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.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: Running two independent clusters

[Ken Gaillot]

On 03/22/2017 05:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
> 
> It's not an option unfortunately.
> Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the
> services (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A
> running on some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes
> as cluster B.
> The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and
> service B have to be independent of each other.
> 
> Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other
> product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).
> 
> -Regards
> Nikhil

Instead of containerizing pacemaker, why don't you containerize or
virtualize the services, and have pacemaker manage the containers/VMs?

Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in
pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or tomorrow.

> 
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
>  > wrote:
> 
> >>> Nikhil Utane  > schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 07:48 in
> Nachricht
>  >:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent support
> > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has
> > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy
> > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> >
> > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we can
> > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication 
> for
> > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for service 
> B
> > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do 
> not
> > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by
> > Service B and vice-versa.
> >
> > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters. From
> > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and 
> Corosync
> > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two 
> isolated
> 
> You conclude from two services that should not see each other that
> you need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and
> two independent clusters.
> Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem
> of fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will always be
> surprised badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging you want that!
> 
> > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker
>  it looks do-able.
> > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it 
> can be
> > done.
> 
> Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
> 
> >
> > Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are 
> any
> > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> >
> > -Thanks
> > Nikhil

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.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: CIB configuration: role with many expressions - error 203

[Radoslaw Garbacz]

I have tried also as 'boolean_op', sorry did not mention this in the
original post (just as a remark the documentation for pacemaker has both
forms).

To make it work I have to remove additional "" and leave only
one.

To summarize:
- having no "boolean..." attribute and a single "expression" - works
- having "boolean-op" and a single "expression" - works

- having "boolean_op" and a single "expression" - does not work
- having either "boolean-op" or "boolean_op" or no such phrase at all with
more than one "expression" - does not work



I have found the reason: expressions IDs within a rule is the same, once I
made it unique it works.


Thanks,


On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Ulrich Windl <
ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:

> >>> Ken Gaillot  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 00:18 in
> Nachricht
> <94b7e5fd-cb65-4775-71df-ca8983629...@redhat.com>:
> > On 03/21/2017 11:20 AM, Radoslaw Garbacz wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a problem when creating rules with many expressions:
> >>
> >>  
> >>  >> boolean-op="and">
> >>>> id="on_nodes_dbx_first_head-expr" value="Active"/>
> >>>> id="on_nodes_dbx_first_head-expr" value="AH"/>
> >> 
> >>   
> >>
> >> Result:
> >> Call cib_replace failed (-203): Update does not conform to the
> >> configured schema
> >>
> >> Everything works when I remove "boolean-op" attribute and leave only one
> >> expression.
> >> What do I do wrong when creating rules?
> >
> > boolean_op
> >
> > Underbar not dash :-)
>
> Good spotting, but I think a more useful error message would be desired ;-)
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Pacemaker 1.1.16-1.el6
> >> Written by Andrew Beekhof
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank in advance for any help,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Radoslaw Garbacz
> >> XtremeData Incorporated
> >
> > ___
> > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> > http://lists.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://lists.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
>



-- 
Best Regards,

Radoslaw Garbacz
XtremeData Incorporated
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.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: Antw: Running two independent clusters

[Ulrich Windl]

>>> Nikhil Utane  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 11:23 in
Nachricht
:
> Hi Ulrich,
> 
> It's not an option unfortunately.
> Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the services
> (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A running on
> some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes as cluster B.
> The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and
> service B have to be independent of each other.
> 
> Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other
> product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).

But why do you need two pacemakers then?

> 
> -Regards
> Nikhil
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl <
> ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> 
>> >>> Nikhil Utane  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
>> 07:48 in
>> Nachricht
>> :
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent support
>> > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has
>> > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy
>> > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
>> >
>> > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
>> > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we can
>> > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication
>> for
>> > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for service B
>> > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do not
>> > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by
>> > Service B and vice-versa.
>> >
>> > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters. From
>> > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and
>> Corosync
>> > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two
>> isolated
>>
>> You conclude from two services that should not see each other that you
>> need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
>> If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and two
>> independent clusters.
>> Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem of
>> fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will always be surprised
>> badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging you want that!
>>
>> > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
>> > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker it looks do-able.
>> > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it can
>> be
>> > done.
>>
>> Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
>>
>> >
>> > Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are
>> any
>> > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
>> >
>> > -Thanks
>> > Nikhil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org 
>> http://lists.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://lists.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: Running two independent clusters

[Klaus Wenninger]

On 03/22/2017 11:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
>
> It's not an option unfortunately.
> Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the
> services (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A
> running on some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other
> nodes as cluster B.
> The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A
> and service B have to be independent of each other.
>
> Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some
> other product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).

I don't know what the official statements are but I have been running up
to 15 Pacemaker (1.1.10)/Corosync-Instances(1.4.7)
with a product years ago using lxc (basically as docker using the
namespaces the linux-kernel provides) and that worked fairly well.
I just had to allow a certain CPU-percentage within a container to be
RT-scheduled for corosync to start properly.

Maybe you could tackle the fencing issue Ulrich has addressed by
introduction of 2 fencing-levels. The 1st one going for
docker-instances and the 2nd (lower prio) going for the nodes. So as
long as fencing the container does the trick the 2nd cluster
won't be involved and once this doesn't work it will go for the node
itself and you will suffer from the probably anyway
inevitable consequences.

Regards,
Klaus
 
>
> -Regards
> Nikhil
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
>  > wrote:
>
> >>> Nikhil Utane  > schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
> 07:48 in
> Nachricht
>  >:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent
> support
> > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago.
> It has
> > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our
> Redundancy
> > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> >
> > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services
> (we can
> > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster
> communication for
> > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for
> service B
> > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover
> we do not
> > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be
> seen by
> > Service B and vice-versa.
> >
> > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent
> clusters. From
> > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker
> and Corosync
> > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run
> two isolated
>
> You conclude from two services that should not see each other that
> you need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks
> and two independent clusters.
> Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the
> problem of fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will
> always be surprised badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging
> you want that!
>
> > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker
>  it looks do-able.
> > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit
> that it can be
> > done.
>
> Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
>
> >
> > Please share your views if you have already done this and if
> there are any
> > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> >
> > -Thanks
> > Nikhil
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> 
> http://lists.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://lists.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://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: 

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

[Nikhil Utane]

Hi Ulrich,

It's not an option unfortunately.
Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the services
(A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A running on
some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes as cluster B.
The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and
service B have to be independent of each other.

Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other
product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).

-Regards
Nikhil


On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl <
ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:

> >>> Nikhil Utane  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
> 07:48 in
> Nachricht
> :
> > Hi All,
> >
> > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent support
> > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has
> > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy
> > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> >
> > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we can
> > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication
> for
> > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for service B
> > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do not
> > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by
> > Service B and vice-versa.
> >
> > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters. From
> > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and
> Corosync
> > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two
> isolated
>
> You conclude from two services that should not see each other that you
> need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and two
> independent clusters.
> Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem of
> fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will always be surprised
> badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging you want that!
>
> > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker it looks do-able.
> > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it can
> be
> > done.
>
> Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
>
> >
> > Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are
> any
> > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> >
> > -Thanks
> > Nikhil
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://lists.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://lists.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] [Linux-cluster] Active/passive cluster between physical and VM

[Digimer]

On 22/03/17 03:11 AM, Amjad Syed wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We are planning to build a 2 node Active/passive cluster  using pacemaker.
> Can the cluster be build between one physical and one VM machine in
> Centos 7.x?
> If yes, what can be used as fencing agent ? 

So long as the traffic between the nodes is not molested, it should work
fine. As for fencing, it depends on your hardware and hypervisor...
Using a generic example, you could use fence_ipmilan to fence the
hardware node and fence_virsh to fence a KVM/qemu based VM.

PS - I've cc'ed clusterlabs - users ML. This list is deprecated, so
please switch over to there
(http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users).

-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com/w/
"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of
Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent
have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.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: Running two independent clusters

[Ulrich Windl]

>>> Nikhil Utane  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 07:48 in
Nachricht
:
> Hi All,
> 
> First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent support
> from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has
> helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy
> solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> 
> Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we can
> call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication for
> Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for service B
> happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do not
> want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by
> Service B and vice-versa.
> 
> So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters. From
> what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and Corosync
> on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two isolated

You conclude from two services that should not see each other that you need to 
instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and two 
independent clusters.
Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem of fencing, 
where at least one pacemaker instance will always be surprised badly if fencing 
takes place. I cannot imaging you want that!

> instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker it looks do-able.
> I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it can be
> done.

Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?

> 
> Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are any
> known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> 
> -Thanks
> Nikhil





___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.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: CIB configuration: role with many expressions - error 203

[Ulrich Windl]

>>> Ken Gaillot  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 00:18 in 
>>> Nachricht
<94b7e5fd-cb65-4775-71df-ca8983629...@redhat.com>:
> On 03/21/2017 11:20 AM, Radoslaw Garbacz wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have a problem when creating rules with many expressions:
>> 
>>  
>> > boolean-op="and">
>>   > id="on_nodes_dbx_first_head-expr" value="Active"/>
>>   > id="on_nodes_dbx_first_head-expr" value="AH"/>
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Result:
>> Call cib_replace failed (-203): Update does not conform to the
>> configured schema
>> 
>> Everything works when I remove "boolean-op" attribute and leave only one
>> expression.
>> What do I do wrong when creating rules?
> 
> boolean_op
> 
> Underbar not dash :-)

Good spotting, but I think a more useful error message would be desired ;-)

> 
>> 
>> 
>> Pacemaker 1.1.16-1.el6
>> Written by Andrew Beekhof
>> 
>> 
>> Thank in advance for any help,
>> 
>> -- 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Radoslaw Garbacz
>> XtremeData Incorporated
> 
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org 
> http://lists.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://lists.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] Running two independent clusters

[Nikhil Utane]

Hi All,

First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent support
from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has
helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy
solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))

Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we can
call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication for
Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for service B
happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do not
want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by
Service B and vice-versa.

So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters. From
what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and Corosync
on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two isolated
instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker it looks do-able.
I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it can be
done.

Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are any
known challenges that I should be familiar with.

-Thanks
Nikhil
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.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