7:33 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com>
To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 8:06:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SSH Soft Fencing
On 06/30/2013 05:46 AM, Yair Zaslavsky wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay(a)redhat.com>
>> To: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>,
engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Eli
>> Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:31:35 PM
>> Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com>
>>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
>>> Cc: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>,
engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Barak
>>> Azulay" <bazulay(a)redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:55:29 PM
>>> Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>,
engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Barak
>>>> Azulay" <bazulay(a)redhat.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:43:17 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com>
>>>>> To: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Yair Zaslavsky"
<yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>,
>>>>> "Barak
>>>>> Azulay" <bazulay(a)redhat.com>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:48:39 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: SSH Soft Fencing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
>>>>>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>,
"Barak Azulay"
>>>>>> <bazulay(a)redhat.com>, "Eli Mesika"
<emesika(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:51:06 PM
>>>>>> Subject: SSH Soft Fencing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SSH Soft Fencing is a new feature for 3.3 and it tries to
restart
>>>>>> VDSM
>>>>>> using SSH connection on non responsive hosts prior to real
fencing.
>>>>>> More info can be found at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://www.ovirt.org/Automatic_Fencing#Automatic_Fencing_in_oVirt_3.3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In current SSH Soft Fencing implementation the restart VDSM
using SSH
>>>>>> command is part of standard fencing implementation in
>>>>>> VdsNotRespondingTreatmentCommand. But this command is executed
only
>>>>>> if a host has a valid PM configuration. If host doesn't have
a valid
>>>>>> PM configuration, the execution of the command is disabled and
host
>>>>>> state is change to Non Responsive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my question are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Should SSH Soft Fencing be executed on hosts without valid
PM
>>>>>> configuration?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that the answer should be yes. The vdsm restart will solve
most
>>>>> of
>>>>> problems , so why not using it whether a PM agent is defined or
not.
>>>> I agree.
>>>> I would like to say that I also don't like the fact that
>>>> VdsNotRespondingTreatment extends RestartVdsCommand.
>>>> One should ask if "non responding treatment is a restart vds
operation"
>>>> or
>>>> maybe RestartVdsCommand is just a step in the non responding treatment
>>>> (inheritance vs containment/delegation).
>>>> I think that VdsNotRespodingTreatment should delegate the call to
>>>> RestartVdsCommand as the 2nd step after issuing the Soft Fencing
>>>> command.
>>>> Thoughts anyone?
>>>
>>> That would be a nice and needed re-factoring
>>
>> I would say yes - but would add it only with appropriate configuration
>> (enableAutoSoftVdsmRestartWhenNoPMAvailable .... I hate the name)
>
> +1 on configuration.
> Configuration must reside at host-related entities (i.e - VdsStatic).
>
> Yair
>
Why would a user like to avoid fencing VDSM when host becomes
non-responsive?
I think that adding another configuration option is cumbersome with no
real value.
The problem i'm trying to solve is not about whether this is the right way to solve a
case where vdsm is not responsive,
But it's about changing the expected behavior in certain cases (and not be able to
disable such a change).
When a user does not configure a PM he does not expect any fencing to happen, and may be
he wants to reach a state where VDSM is stuck .....
(even for development purposes ...) and buy doing the automatic SSH fencing we are
actually depriving him from thas option.
So let's enable him to reach that situation if he desires (by configuration), and put
the default to automatically do the SSH + restart.
Livnat
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Should VDSM restart using SSH command be reimplemented
>>>>>> as standalone command to be usable also in other parts of
engine?
>>>>>> If 1) is true, I think it will have to be done anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I agree here.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>
>> On one hand it makes sense, but I have several questions on the above:
>> - Who do we think may want to use such a command ?
>> - Should (or even can) we limit the use of such command to
>> noneResponsiveTreatment ?
>>
>> Having general commands available to all code when there is only one
>> specific
>> case we are using it might be a bit riskey,
>> Especially when we talk about restarting something.
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin Perina
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel