On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:12 AM, FERNANDO FREDIANI <
fernando.frediani(a)upx.com> wrote:
Should I understand then that fecing is not mandatory, just advised
and
there are no downtimes to the rest of the cluster if a pending manual
action has to be done to confirm a host has been rebooted in order to move
the SPM to another live host. Perhaps only effect is not be able to add new
hosts and connect to storage or something ?
A missing SPM will not affect existing VMs. Running VMs (on hosts other
than the SPM host) will continue to run normally and you can even start
existing VMs. Without an SPM you will not be able to manipulate the
storage (Add/remove domains, add/remove disks, migrate disks, etc).
Fernando
On 17/04/2017 10:06, Nir Soffer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:24 AM Konstantin Raskoshnyi <konrasko(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> But actually, it didn't work well. After main SPM host went down I see
> this
> [image: Screen Shot 2017-04-16 at 10.22.00 PM.png]
>
> 2017-04-17 05:23:15,554Z ERROR [org.ovirt.engine.core.vdsbroker.irsbroker.IrsProxy]
> (DefaultQuartzScheduler5) [4dcc033d-26bf-49bb-bfaa-03a970dbbec1] SPM
> Init: could not find reported vds or not up - pool: 'STG' vds_spm_id:
'1'
> 2017-04-17 05:23:15,567Z INFO [org.ovirt.engine.core.vdsbroker.irsbroker.IrsProxy]
> (DefaultQuartzScheduler5) [4dcc033d-26bf-49bb-bfaa-03a970dbbec1] SPM
> selection - vds seems as spm 'tank5'
> 2017-04-17 05:23:15,567Z WARN [org.ovirt.engine.core.vdsbroker.irsbroker.IrsProxy]
> (DefaultQuartzScheduler5) [4dcc033d-26bf-49bb-bfaa-03a970dbbec1] spm vds
> is non responsive, stopping spm selection.
>
> So that means only if BMC is up it's possible to automatically switch
> SPM host?
>
BMC?
If your SPM is no responsive, the system will try to fence it. Did you
configure power management for all hosts? did you check that it
work? How did you simulate non-responsive host?
If power management is not configured or fail, the system cannot
move the spm to another host, unless you manually confirm that the
SPM host was rebooted.
Nir
>
> Thanks
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Konstantin Raskoshnyi <
> konrasko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, fence agent works fine if I select ilo4,
>> Thank you for your help!
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 8:22 PM Dan Yasny <dyasny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Konstantin Raskoshnyi <
>>> konrasko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Makes sense.
>>>> I was trying to set it up, but doesn't work with our staging
hardware.
>>>> We have old ilo100, I'll try again.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It is absolutely necessary for any HA to work properly. There's of
>>> course the "confirm host has been shutdown" option, which serves as
an
>>> override for the fence command, but it's manual
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 8:18 PM Dan Yasny <dyasny(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Konstantin Raskoshnyi <
>>>>> konrasko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fence agent under each node?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When you configure a host, there's the power management tab,
where
>>>>> you need to enter the bmc details for the host. If you don't have
fencing
>>>>> enabled, how do you expect the system to make sure a host running a
service
>>>>> is actually down (and it is safe to start HA services elsewhere), and
not,
>>>>> for example, just unreachable by the engine? How do you avoid a
splitbraid
>>>>> -> SBA ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 8:14 PM Dan Yasny
<dyasny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Konstantin Raskoshnyi <
>>>>>>> konrasko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Corner cases"?
>>>>>>>> I tried to simulate crash of SPM server and ovirt kept
trying to
>>>>>>>> reistablished connection to the failed node.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you configure fencing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 8:10 PM Dan Yasny
<dyasny(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Nir Soffer
<nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:05 PM Dan Yasny
<dyasny(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2017 7:01 AM, "Nir
Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 4:17 AM Dan Yasny
<dyasny(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you set up a storage domain, you
need to specify a host
>>>>>>>>>>>> to perform the initial storage
operations, but once the SD is defined, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> details are in the engine database, and
all the hosts get connected to it
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly. If the first host you used to
define the SD goes down, all other
>>>>>>>>>>>> hosts will still remain connected and
work. SPM is an HA service, and if
>>>>>>>>>>>> the current SPM host goes down, SPM gets
started on another host in the DC.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, unless your actual NFS
exporting host goes down, there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> outage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no storage outage, but if you
shutdown the spm host,
>>>>>>>>>>> the spm host
>>>>>>>>>>> will not move to a new host until the spm
host is online again,
>>>>>>>>>>> or you confirm
>>>>>>>>>>> manually that the spm host was rebooted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In a properly configured setup the SBA should
take care of
>>>>>>>>>>> that. That's the whole point of HA
services
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In some cases like power loss or hardware
failure, there is no
>>>>>>>>>> way to start
>>>>>>>>>> the spm host, and the system cannot recover
automatically.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are always corner cases, no doubt. But in a
normal
>>>>>>>>> situation. where an SPM host goes down because of a
hardware failure, it
>>>>>>>>> gets fenced, other hosts contend for SPM and start
it. No surprises there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nir
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nir
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:53 PM,
Konstantin Raskoshnyi <
>>>>>>>>>>>> konrasko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Fernando,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see each host has direct connection
nfs mount, but yes, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main host to which I connected nfs
storage going down the storage becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unavailable and all vms are down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:37 AM
FERNANDO FREDIANI <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fernando.frediani(a)upx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Konstantin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn`t make much sense make
a whole cluster depend on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single host. From what I know
any host talk directly to NFS Storage Array
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or whatever other Shared Storage
you have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you tested that host going
down if that affects the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other with the NFS mounted
directlly in a NFS Storage array ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fernando
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-04-15 12:42 GMT-03:00
Konstantin Raskoshnyi <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> konrasko(a)gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In ovirt you have to attach
storage through specific host.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If host goes down storage is
not available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 7:31
AM FERNANDO FREDIANI <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fernando.frediani(a)upx.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, make it not go
through host1 and dedicate a storage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server for running NFS
and make both hosts connect to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my view NFS is much
easier to manage than any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of storage,
specially FC and iSCSI and performance is pretty much the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same, so you won`t get
better results other than management going to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fernando
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-04-15 5:25 GMT-03:00
Konstantin Raskoshnyi <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> konrasko(a)gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have one nfs
storage,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's connected
through host1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> host2 also has access
to it, I can easily migrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vms between them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is - if
host1 is down - all infrastructure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is down, since all
traffic goes through host1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is there any way in
oVirt to use redundant storage?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only glusterfs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users