Il 22/03/2013 16:27, Digimer ha scritto: > On 03/22/2013 11:21 AM, Maurizio Giungato wrote: >> Il 22/03/2013 00:34, Digimer ha scritto: >>> On 03/21/2013 02:09 PM, Maurizio Giungato wrote: >>>> Il 21/03/2013 18:48, Maurizio Giungato ha scritto: >>>>> Il 21/03/2013 18:14, Digimer ha scritto: >>>>>> On 03/21/2013 01:11 PM, Maurizio Giungato wrote: >>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> my goal is to create a reliable virtualization environment using >>>>>>> CentOS >>>>>>> 6.4 and KVM, I've three nodes and a clustered GFS2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The enviroment is up and working, but I'm worry for the >>>>>>> reliability, if >>>>>>> I turn the network interface down on one node to simulate a crash >>>>>>> (for >>>>>>> example on the node "node6.blade"): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) GFS2 hangs (processes go in D state) until node6.blade get >>>>>>> fenced >>>>>>> 2) not only node6.blade get fenced, but also node5.blade! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Help me to save my last neurons! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Maurizio >>>>>> >>>>>> DLM, the distributed lock manager provided by the cluster, is >>>>>> designed to block when a known goes into an unknown state. It does >>>>>> not unblock until that node is confirmed to be fenced. This is by >>>>>> design. GFS2, rgmanager and clustered LVM all use DLM, so they will >>>>>> all block as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for why two nodes get fenced, you will need to share more about >>>>>> your configuration. >>>>>> >>>>> My configuration is very simple I attached cluster.conf and hosts >>>>> files. >>>>> This is the row I added in /etc/fstab: >>>>> /dev/mapper/KVM_IMAGES-VL_KVM_IMAGES /var/lib/libvirt/images gfs2 >>>>> defaults,noatime,nodiratime 0 0 >>>>> >>>>> I set also fallback_to_local_locking = 0 in lvm.conf (but nothing >>>>> change) >>>>> >>>>> PS: I had two virtualization enviroments working like a charm on >>>>> OCFS2, but since Centos 6.x I'm not able to install it, there is same >>>>> way to achieve the same results with GFS2 (with GFS2 sometime I've a >>>>> crash after only a "service network restart" [I've many interfaces >>>>> then this operation takes more than 10 seconds], with OCFS2 I've >>>>> never >>>>> had this problem. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>> I attached my logs from /var/log/cluster/* >>> >>> The configuration itself seems ok, though I think you can safely take >>> qdisk out to simplify things. That's neither here nor there though. >>> >>> This concerns me: >>> >>> Mar 21 19:00:14 fenced fence lama6.blade dev 0.0 agent >>> fence_bladecenter result: error from agent >>> Mar 21 19:00:14 fenced fence lama6.blade failed >>> >>> How are you triggering the failure(s)? The failed fence would >>> certainly help explain the delays. As I mentioned earlier, DLM is >>> designed to block when a node is in an unknowned state (failed but not >>> yet successfully fenced). >>> >>> As an aside; I do my HA VMs using clustered LVM LVs as the backing >>> storage behind the VMs. GFS2 is an excellent file system, but it is >>> expensive. Putting your VMs directly on the LV takes them out of the >>> equation >> >> I used 'service network stop' to simulate the failure, the node get >> fenced through fence_bladecenter (BladeCenter HW) >> >> Anyway, I took qdisk out and put GFS2 aside and now I've my VM on LVM >> LVs, I'm trying for many hours to reproduce the issue >> >> - only the node where I execute 'service network stop' get fenced >> - using fallback_to_local_locking = 0 in lvm.conf LVM LVs remain >> writable also while fencing take place >> >> All seems to work like a charm now. >> >> I'd like to understand what was happening. I'll try for same day before >> trusting it. >> >> Thank you so much. >> Maurizio >> > > Testing testing testing. It's good that you plan to test before > trusting. I wish everyone had that philosophy! > > The clustered locking for LVM comes into play for > activating/inactivating, creating, deleting, resizing and so on. It > does not affect what happens in an LV. That's why an LV remains > writeable when a fence is pending. However, I feel this is safe > because rgmanager won't recover a VM on another node until the lost > node is fenced. > > Cheers Thank you very much! The cluster continue working like a charm. Failure after failure I mean :) We are not using rgmanager fault management because doesn't have a check about the memory availability on the destination node, then we prefer to manage this situation with custom script we wrote. last questions: - have you any advice to improve the tollerance against network failures? - to avoid having a gfs2 only for VM's xml, I've thought to keep them on each node synced with rsync. Any alternatives? - If I want to have only the clustered LVM without no other functions, can you advice about a minimal configuration? (for example I think that rgmanager is not necessary) Thank you in advance _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
