[Users] Testing High Availability and Power outages
Alexandru Vladulescu
avladulescu at bfproject.ro
Sun Jan 13 19:49:25 UTC 2013
Dear Doron,
I had the case retested now and I am writing you the results.
Furthermore, if this information should be useful for you, my network
setup is the following: 2 Layer 2 (Zyxel es2108-g & ES2200-8) switches
configured with 2 VLANs ( 1 inside backbone network -- added br0 to
Ovirt ; 1 outside network -- running on ovirtmgmt interface for Internet
traffic to VMs). The backbone switch is a gigabit capable one, and each
host runs on jumbo frame setup. There is one more firewall server that
routes the subnets through trunking port and VLAN configuration. The
Ovirt software has been setup with backbone network subnet.
As you could guess the network infrastructure is not the problem here.
The test case was the same as described before:
1. Vm running on Hyper01, none on Hyper02. Host had configured the High
Available check box.
2. Hand power off of Hyper01 from power network (no soft/manual shutdown).
3. After a while, Ovirt marks the Hyper01 as Non Responsive
4. Manually clicked on Confirm host reboot and the VM starts after
Ovirt's manual fence to Hyper01 on Hyper02 host.
I have provided engine log attached. The Confirm Host reboot was done at
precise time of 21:31:45 On the cluster section, in Ovirt, I did try
changing the "Resilience Policy" attribute from "Migrate Virtual
Machines" to "Migrate only High Available Virtual Machines" but with the
same results.
As I am guessing from the engine log the Node Controller sees the
Hyper01 node as it has a "network fault" no route to host, although this
was shut down.
Is this supposed to be the default behavior in this case, as the
scenario might overlap with a real case of network outage.
My Regards,
Alex.
On 01/13/2013 10:54 AM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Alexandru Vladulescu" <avladulescu at bfproject.ro>
> *To: *"Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck at redhat.com>
> *Cc: *"users" <users at ovirt.org>
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:46:41 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [Users] Testing High Availability and Power outages
>
> Dear Doron,
>
> I haven't collected the logs from the tests, but I would gladly
> re-do the case and get back to you asap.
>
> This feature is the main reason of which I have chosen to go with
> Ovirt in the first place, besides other virt environments.
>
> Could you please inform me what logs should I be focusing on,
> besides the engine log; vdsm maybe or other relevant logs?
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
>
> --
> Sent from phone.
>
> On 13.01.2013, at 09:56, Doron Fediuck <dfediuck at redhat.com
> <mailto:dfediuck at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Alexandru Vladulescu" <avladulescu at bfproject.ro
> <mailto:avladulescu at bfproject.ro>>
> *To: *"users" <users at ovirt.org <mailto:users at ovirt.org>>
> *Sent: *Friday, January 11, 2013 2:47:38 PM
> *Subject: *[Users] Testing High Availability and Power outages
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Today, I started testing on my Ovirt 3.1 installation
> (from dreyou repos) running on 3 x Centos 6.3 hypervisors
> the High Availability features and the fence mechanism.
>
> As yesterday, I have reported in a previous email thread,
> that the migration priority queue cannot be increased
> (bug) in this current version, I decided to test what the
> official documentation says about the High Availability
> cases.
>
> This will be a disaster case scenarios to suffer from if
> one hypervisor has a power outage/hardware problem and the
> VMs running on it are not migrating on other spare resources.
>
>
> In the official documenation from ovirt.org
> <http://ovirt.org> it is quoted the following:
>
>
> /High availability /
>
> //
>
> /Allows critical VMs to be restarted on another host in
> the event of hardware failure with three levels of
> priority, taking into account resiliency policy. /
>
> //
>
> * /Resiliency policy to control high availability VMs at
> the cluster level. /
> * /Supports application-level high availability with
> supported fencing agents. /
>
>
> As well as in the Architecture description:
>
> /High Availability - restart guest VMs from failed hosts
> automatically on other hosts/
>
>
>
> So the testing went like this -- One VM running a linux
> box, having the check box "High Available" and "Priority
> for Run/Migration queue:" set to Low. On Host we have the
> check box to "Any Host in Cluster", without "Allow VM
> migration only upon Admin specific request" checked.
>
>
>
> My environment:
>
>
> Configuration : 2 x Hypervisors (same cluster/hardware
> configuration) ; 1 x Hypervisor + acting as a NAS (NFS)
> server (different cluster/hardware configuration)
>
> Actions: Went and cut-off the power from one of the
> hypervisors from the 2 node clusters, while the VM was
> running on. This would translate to a power outage.
>
> Results: The hypervisor node that suffered from the outage
> is showing in Hosts tab as Non Responsive on Status, and
> the VM has a question mark and cannot be powered off or
> nothing (therefore it's stuck).
>
> In the Log console in GUI, I get:
>
> Host Hyper01 is non-responsive.
> VM Web-Frontend01 was set to the Unknown status.
>
> There is nothing I could I could do besides clicking on
> the Hyper01 "Confirm Host as been rebooted", afterwards
> the VM starts on the Hyper02 with a cold reboot of the VM.
>
> The Log console changes to:
>
> Vm Web-Frontend01 was shut down due to Hyper01 host reboot
> or manual fence
> All VMs' status on Non-Responsive Host Hyper01 were
> changed to 'Down' by admin at internal
> Manual fencing for host Hyper01 was started.
> VM Web-Frontend01 was restarted on Host Hyper02
>
>
> I would like you approach on this problem, reading the
> documentation & features pages on the official website, I
> suppose that this would have been an automatically
> mechanism working on some sort of a vdsm & engine fencing
> action. Am I missing something regarding it ?
>
>
> Thank you for your patience reading this.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alex.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at ovirt.org <mailto:Users at ovirt.org>
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Hi Alex,
> Can you share with us the engine's log from the relevant time
> period?
>
> Doron
>
> Hi Alex,
> engine log is the important one, as it will indicate on the decision
> making process.
> VDSM logs should be kept in case something is unclear, but I suggest
> we begin with
> engine.log.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130113/b0ed1009/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: engine.log
Type: text/x-log
Size: 44963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130113/b0ed1009/attachment-0001.bin>
More information about the Users
mailing list