Hi,
sorry for the late answer and thanks everyone who already responded.
This feature was implemented a long time ago based on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180506
The request was: pcs cluster stop -> this operation should verify if
removing a node from the cluster will cause loss of quorum and abort. Of
course we want to allow a manual override.
And that's what we did.
The idea is to warn users that by stopping specified node(s) or the
local node, the cluster will lose quorum and stop all resources. If the
last node is being stopped, then obviously all resources will be
stopped. The wording of the message could be improved in this case. But
in general, I agree with Ken and lean towards keeping the behavior.
As Ulrich pointed out, 'pcs cluster stop --all' doesn't check for quorum
loss, since the user made it clear (by specifying --all), that they want
to stop the whole cluster.
Regards,
Tomas
Dne 28. 04. 21 v 17:41 Digimer napsal(a):
On 2021-04-28 10:10 a.m., Ken Gaillot wrote:
On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 23:23 -0400, Digimer wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed something odd.
====
[root@an-a02n01 ~]# pcs cluster status
Cluster Status:
Cluster Summary:
* Stack: corosync
* Current DC: an-a02n01 (version 2.0.4-6.el8_3.2-2deceaa3ae) -
partition with quorum
* Last updated: Tue Apr 27 23:20:45 2021
* Last change: Tue Apr 27 23:12:40 2021 by root via cibadmin on
an-a02n01
* 2 nodes configured
* 12 resource instances configured (4 DISABLED)
Node List:
* Online: [ an-a02n01 ]
* OFFLINE: [ an-a02n02 ]
PCSD Status:
an-a02n01: Online
an-a02n02: Offline
====
[root@an-a02n01 ~]# pcs cluster stop
Error: Stopping the node will cause a loss of the quorum, use --force
to
override
====
Shouldn't pcs know it's the last node and shut down without
complaint?
It knows, it's just not sure you know :)
pcs's design philosophy is to hand-hold users by default and give
expert users --force.
The idea in this case is that (especially in 3-to-5-node clusters)
someone might not realize that stopping one node could make all
resources stop cluster-wide.
This makes total sense in 3+ node cluster. However, when you're asking
the last node in a two-node cluster to stop, then it seems odd. Perhaps
overriding this behaviour when 2-node is set?
In any case, I'm calling this from a program and that means I need to
use '--force' all the time (or add some complex logic of my own, which I
can do).
Well anyway, now I know it was intentional. :)
_______________________________________________
Manage your subscription:
https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
