On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 17:35, David Dolan <daithido...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi All, >> > >> > I'm running Pacemaker on Centos7 >> > Name : pcs >> > Version : 0.9.169 >> > Release : 3.el7.centos.3 >> > Architecture: x86_64 >> > >> > >> Besides the pcs-version versions of the other cluster-stack-components >> could be interesting. (pacemaker, corosync) >> > rpm -qa | egrep "pacemaker|pcs|corosync|fence-agents" > fence-agents-vmware-rest-4.2.1-41.el7_9.6.x86_64 > corosynclib-2.4.5-7.el7_9.2.x86_64 > pacemaker-cluster-libs-1.1.23-1.el7_9.1.x86_64 > fence-agents-common-4.2.1-41.el7_9.6.x86_64 > corosync-2.4.5-7.el7_9.2.x86_64 > pacemaker-cli-1.1.23-1.el7_9.1.x86_64 > pacemaker-1.1.23-1.el7_9.1.x86_64 > pcs-0.9.169-3.el7.centos.3.x86_64 > pacemaker-libs-1.1.23-1.el7_9.1.x86_64 > >> >> >> > I'm performing some cluster failover tests in a 3 node cluster. We have >> 3 >> > resources in the cluster. >> > I was trying to see if I could get it working if 2 nodes fail at >> different >> > times. I'd like the 3 resources to then run on one node. >> > >> > The quorum options I've configured are as follows >> > [root@node1 ~]# pcs quorum config >> > Options: >> > auto_tie_breaker: 1 >> > last_man_standing: 1 >> > last_man_standing_window: 10000 >> > wait_for_all: 1 >> > >> > >> Not sure if the combination of auto_tie_breaker and last_man_standing >> makes >> sense. >> And as you have a cluster with an odd number of nodes auto_tie_breaker >> should be >> disabled anyway I guess. >> > Ah ok I'll try removing auto_tie_breaker and leave last_man_standing > >> >> >> > [root@node1 ~]# pcs quorum status >> > Quorum information >> > ------------------ >> > Date: Wed Aug 30 11:20:04 2023 >> > Quorum provider: corosync_votequorum >> > Nodes: 3 >> > Node ID: 1 >> > Ring ID: 1/1538 >> > Quorate: Yes >> > >> > Votequorum information >> > ---------------------- >> > Expected votes: 3 >> > Highest expected: 3 >> > Total votes: 3 >> > Quorum: 2 >> > Flags: Quorate WaitForAll LastManStanding AutoTieBreaker >> > >> > Membership information >> > ---------------------- >> > Nodeid Votes Qdevice Name >> > 1 1 NR node1 (local) >> > 2 1 NR node2 >> > 3 1 NR node3 >> > >> > If I stop the cluster services on node 2 and 3, the groups all failover >> to >> > node 1 since it is the node with the lowest ID >> > But if I stop them on node1 and node 2 or node1 and node3, the cluster >> > fails. >> > >> > I tried adding this line to corosync.conf and I could then bring down >> the >> > services on node 1 and 2 or node 2 and 3 but if I left node 2 until >> last, >> > the cluster failed >> > auto_tie_breaker_node: 1 3 >> > >> > This line had the same outcome as using 1 3 >> > auto_tie_breaker_node: 1 2 3 >> > >> > >> Giving multiple auto_tie_breaker-nodes doesn't make sense to me but rather >> sounds dangerous if that configuration is possible at all. >> >> Maybe the misbehavior of last_man_standing is due to this (maybe not >> recognized) misconfiguration. >> Did you wait long enough between letting the 2 nodes fail? >> > I've done it so many times so I believe so. But I'll try remove the > auto_tie_breaker config, leaving the last_man_standing. I'll also make sure > I leave a couple of minutes between bringing down the nodes and post back. > Just confirming I removed the auto_tie_breaker config and tested. Quorum configuration is as follows: Options: last_man_standing: 1 last_man_standing_window: 10000 wait_for_all: 1 I waited 2-3 minutes between stopping cluster services on two nodes via pcs cluster stop The remaining cluster node is then fenced. I was hoping the remaining node would stay online running the resources. >> Klaus >> >> >> > So I'd like it to failover when any combination of two nodes fail but >> I've >> > only had success when the middle node isn't last. >> > >> > Thanks >> > David >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
