RE: bug in /etc/init.d/ceph debian

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, James Harper wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, James Harper wrote:
> > > > Hi James,
> > > >
> > > > Here is a somewhat simpler patch; does this work for you?  Note that if
> > > > you something like /etc/init.d/ceph status osd.123 where osd.123 isn't in
> > > > ceph.conf then you get a status 1 instead of 3.  But for the
> > > > /etc/init.d/ceph status mds (or osd or mon) case where there are no
> > > > daemons of a particular type it works.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the "does not exist" check should be also modified to return 3?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Pacemaker will call the RA on every node to see what is running. On a node
> > in an asymmetric cluster where ceph isn't configured, the RA just wants to
> > know that it isn't running - it won't like an error being returned. For a node
> > without even the RA script installed it would return not-installed, but I think
> > that's okay too.
> > >
> > > Do you think maybe the 'ceph status' check and the RA check have
> > conflicting requirements here? Maybe it would be better to leave the init.d
> > script as-is and build the smarts into the RA script instead.
> > 
> > Maybe, but I'm not completely following what the RA's requirements are
> > here.  If it's just a matter of the init script returning a different
> > error code, though (as we've done so far), I don't see any problem.
> > 
> 
> I haven't tried your patch yet, but can it ever return 0? It seems to 
> set it to 3 initially, and then change it to 1 if it finds an error. I 
> can't see that it ever sets it to 0 indicating that daemons are running. 
> Easy enough to fix by setting the EXIT_STATUS=0 after the check of 
> daemon_is_running, I think, but it still doesn't allow for the case 
> where there are three OSD's, one is running, one is stopped, and one is 
> failed. The EXIT_STATUS in that case appears to be based on the last 
> daemon checked, eg basically random.

What should it return in that case?

sage

> 
> > > Do idle mds's add any load to the system? Would it be useful to be 
> > > able to have pacemaker bring up mds's on any two nodes so you always 
> > > have exactly two running, without actually tying them to specific 
> > > nodes?
> > 
> > They don't add much load when they are standby, but they will if they end
> > up taking over.  There is also no reason to say 'exactly two' IMO.  If you
> > have a symmetric cluster I would be more inclined to run one on every node
> > for simplicity, recognizing that the active one will use some resources.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for that clarification
> 
> James
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux