[Pacemaker] How to prevent locked I/O using Pacemaker with Primary/Primary DRBD/OCFS2 (Ubuntu 10.10)

[Lars Ellenberg]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:26:24AM -0600, Reid, Mike wrote:
> Lars,
> 
> Thank you for your comments. I did confirm I was running 8.3.8.1, and I have even upgraded to 8.3.10 but am still experiencing the same I/O lock issue. I definitely agree with you, DRBD is behaving exactly as instructed, being properly fenced, etc.
> 
> I am quite new to DRBD (and OCFS2), learning a lot as I go. To your
> question regarding copy/paste, yes, the configuration used was
> culminated from a series of different tutorials, plus personal trial
> and error related to this project. I have tried many variations of the
> DRBD config (including resource-and-stonith)

> but have not actually set up a functioning STONITH yet,

And that's why your ocfs2 does not unblock.
It waits for confirmation of a STONITH operation.

> hence the
> "resource-only". The  Linbit
> docs have been an amazing resource.
> 
> Yes, I realize that a Secondary-node is not indicative of it's
> data/synch state. The options I am testing here were referenced from
> this page:
> 
> 
> 
> 	http://www.drbd.org/users-guide/s-ocfs2-create-resource.html
> 	http://www.drbd.org/users-guide/s-configure-split-brain-behavior.html#s-automatic-split-brain-recovery-configuration 
> 	
> 	
> 
> When you say "You do configure automatic data loss here", are you
> suggesting that I am instructing DRBD survivor to perform a full
> re-synch to it's peer?

Nothing to do with full sync. Should usually be a bitmap based resync.

But it may be a sync in an "unexpected" direction.

> If so, that would make sense since I believe
> this behavior was something I experienced prior to getting fencing
> fully established. In my hard-boot testing, I did once notice the
> "victim" was completely resynching, which sounds related to
> "after-sb-1pri discard-secondary". 
> 
> DRBD aside, have you used OCFS2? I'm failing to realize why if DRBD is fencing it's peer that OCFS2 remains in a locked-state, unable to run standalone? To me, this issue does not seem related to DRBD or Pacemaker, but rather a lower-level requirement of OCFS2 (DLM?), etc.
> 
> To date, the ONLY way I can restore I/O to the remaining node is to bring the other node back online, which unfortunately won't work in our Production environment. On a separate ML, someone made a suggestion that "qdisk" might be required to make this work, and while I have tried "qdisk", my high-level research leads me to believe that is a legacy approach, not an option with Pacemaker.  Is that correct? 

> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> 
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker


-- 
: Lars Ellenberg
: LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability
: DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com

DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria.