[Pacemaker] DRBD active/passive on Pacemaker+CMAN cluster unexpectedly performs STONITH when promoting

[Giuseppe Ragusa]

> >  > > }
> >  > > handlers {
> >  > > fence-peer "/usr/lib/drbd/rhcs_fence";
> >  > > }
> >  > > }
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > rhcs_fence is wrong fence-peer utility. You should use
> >  > /usr/lib/drbd/crm-fence-peer.sh and
> >  > /usr/lib/drbd/crm-unfence-peer.sh instead.
> >
> > But my understanging (probably wrong) was that the fence-peer handler is
> > meant to be called for STONITH, not for "usual" promotions/demotions
> > to/from Primary/Secondary.
> >
> > If I use the aforementioned pair of handlers (crm-*.sh) for
> > fence/unfence, do I still get STONITH behavior for "split brain cases"?
> >
> 
> Correct. The 'rhcs_fence' handler passes fence calls on to cman, which 
> you have set to redirect on to pacemaker. This isn't what it was 
> designed for, and hasn't been tested. It was meant to be an updated 
> replacement for obliterate-peer.sh in cman+rgmanager clusters directly 
> (no pacemaker).

Well, since it is a CMAN cluster after all and rhcs_fence relies only (besides /proc/drbd) on cman_tool and fence_node (which should be correctly working), I thought it would be the correct fence script choice, but I will obviously accept your suggestion and use the crm-* scripts instead.

Anyway, I'm afraid that the real problem lurks elsewhere, since, as I stated before, a simple master/slave promotion/demotion should not lead to fencing, I suppose.

As suggested by Nikita Staroverov                                                                       , I pasted relevant (I hope) excerpts from logs on first node (the one surviving the stonith) at the time of one "stonith fest" :) just after committing a CIB update with new resources.

http://pastebin.com/0eQqsftb

I can recall that seconds before being shot, the second node "lost contact" with cluster (I was issuing "pcs status" and "crm_mon -Arf1" from an SSH session and suddenly it went "cluster not connected" or something like that).

Maybe (apart from the aforementioned improper use of rhcs_fence) there are issues with some timeout settings on cluster/DRBD operations and almost certainly the nodes have problems with their clock (still finding a reasonable/reachable NTP source), but I do not know if these can be relevant issues.

Many thanks again for your suggestions.

Regards,
Giuseppe
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20140703/606b5813/attachment.htm>