[ClusterLabs] large cluster - failure recovery
Radoslaw Garbacz
radoslaw.garbacz at xtremedatainc.com
Wed Nov 4 23:28:35 CET 2015
Thank you Ken and Digimer for all your suggestions.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 12:55 PM, Digimer wrote:
> > On 04/11/15 01:50 PM, Radoslaw Garbacz wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a cluster of 32 nodes, and after some tuning was able to have it
> >> started and running,
> >
> > This is not supported by RH for a reasons; it's hard to get the timing
> > right. SUSE supports up to 32 nodes, but they must be doing some serious
> > magic behind the scenes.
> >
> > I would *strongly* recommend dividing this up into a few smaller
> > clusters... 8 nodes per cluster would be max I'd feel comfortable with.
> > You need your cluster to solve more problems than it causes...
>
> Hi Radoslaw,
>
> RH supports up to 16. 32 should be possible with recent
> pacemaker+corosync versions and careful tuning, but it's definitely
> leading-edge.
>
> An alternative with pacemaker 1.1.10+ (1.1.12+ recommended) is Pacemaker
> Remote, which easily scales to dozens of nodes:
>
> http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1-pcs/html-single/Pacemaker_Remote/index.html
>
> Pacemaker Remote is a really good approach once you start pushing the
> limits of cluster nodes. Probably better than trying to get corosync to
> handle more nodes. (There are long-term plans for improving corosync's
> scalability, but that doesn't help you now.)
>
> >> but it does not recover from a node disconnect-connect failure.
> >> It regains quorum, but CIB does not recover to a synchronized state and
> >> "cibadmin -Q" times out.
> >>
> >> Is there anything with corosync or pacemaker parameters I can do to make
> >> it recover from such a situation
> >> (everything works for smaller clusters).
> >>
> >> In my case it is OK for a node to disconnect (all the major resources
> >> are shutdown)
> >> and later reconnect the cluster (the running monitoring agent will
> >> cleanup and restart major resources if needed),
> >> so I do not have STONITH configured.
> >>
> >> Details:
> >> OS: CentOS 6
> >> Pacemaker: Pacemaker 1.1.9-1512.el6
> >
> > Upgrade.
>
> If you can upgrade to the latest CentOS 6.7, you can get a much newer
> Pacemaker. But Pacemaker is probably not limiting your cluster nodes;
> the newer version's main benefit would be Pacemaker Remote support. (Of
> course there are plenty of bug fixes and new features as well.)
>
> >> Corosync: Corosync Cluster Engine, version '2.3.2'
> >
> > This is not supported on EL6 at all. Please stick with corosync 1.4 and
> > use the cman pluging as the quorum provider.
>
> CentOS is self-supported anyway, so if you're willing to handle your own
> upgrades and such, nothing wrong with compiling. But corosync is up to
> 2.3.5 so you're already behind. :) I'd recommend compiling libqb 0.17.2
> if you're compiling recent corosync and/or pacemaker.
>
> Alternatively, CentOS 7 will have recent versions of everything.
>
> >> Corosync configuration:
> >> token: 10000
> >> #token_retransmits_before_loss_const: 10
> >> consensus: 15000
> >> join: 1000
> >> send_join: 80
> >> merge: 1000
> >> downcheck: 2000
> >> #rrp_problem_count_timeout: 5000
> >> max_network_delay: 150 # for azure
> >>
> >>
> >> Some logs:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> Nov 04 17:50:18 [7985] ip-10-142-181-98 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> cib_process_diff: Diff 1.9254.1 -> 1.9255.1 from local not
> >> applied to 1.9275.1: current "epoch" is greater than required
> >> Nov 04 17:50:18 [7985] ip-10-142-181-98 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> update_cib_cache_cb: [cib_diff_notify] Patch aborted: Application
> >> of an update diff failed (-1006)
> >> Nov 04 17:50:18 [7985] ip-10-142-181-98 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> cib_process_diff: Diff 1.9255.1 -> 1.9256.1 from local not
> >> applied to 1.9275.1: current "epoch" is greater than required
> >> Nov 04 17:50:18 [7985] ip-10-142-181-98 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> update_cib_cache_cb: [cib_diff_notify] Patch aborted: Application
> >> of an update diff failed (-1006)
> >> Nov 04 17:50:18 [7985] ip-10-142-181-98 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> cib_process_diff: Diff 1.9256.1 -> 1.9257.1 from local not
> >> applied to 1.9275.1: current "epoch" is greater than required
> >> Nov 04 17:50:18 [7985] ip-10-142-181-98 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> update_cib_cache_cb: [cib_diff_notify] Patch aborted: Application
> >> of an update diff failed (-1006)
> >> Nov 04 17:50:18 [7985] ip-10-142-181-98 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> cib_process_diff: Diff 1.9257.1 -> 1.9258.1 from local not
> >> applied to 1.9275.1: current "epoch" is greater than required
> >> Nov 04 17:50:18 [7985] ip-10-142-181-98 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> update_cib_cache_cb: [cib_diff_notify] Patch aborted: Application
> >> of an update diff failed (-1006)
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> Nov 04 17:43:24 [12176] ip-10-109-145-175 crm_mon: error:
> >> cib_native_perform_op_delegate: Couldn't perform cib_query
> >> operation (timeout=120s): Operation already in progress (-114)
> >> Nov 04 17:43:24 [12176] ip-10-109-145-175 crm_mon: error:
> >> get_cib_copy: Couldnt retrieve the CIB
> >> Nov 04 17:43:24 [12176] ip-10-109-145-175 crm_mon: error:
> >> cib_native_perform_op_delegate: Couldn't perform cib_query
> >> operation (timeout=120s): Operation already in progress (-114)
> >> Nov 04 17:43:24 [12176] ip-10-109-145-175 crm_mon: error:
> >> get_cib_copy: Couldnt retrieve the CIB
> >> Nov 04 17:47:40 [10599] ip-10-109-145-175 corosync notice [QUORUM]
> >> Members[32]: 3 27 11 29 23 21 24 9 17 12 32 13 2 10 16 15 6 28 19 1 22
> 26 5\
> >> Nov 04 17:47:40 [10599] ip-10-109-145-175 corosync notice [QUORUM]
> >> Members[32]: 14 20 31 30 8 25 18 7 4
> >> Nov 04 17:47:40 [10599] ip-10-109-145-175 corosync notice [MAIN ]
> >> Completed service synchronization, ready to provide service.
> >> Nov 04 18:06:55 [10599] ip-10-109-145-175 corosync notice [QUORUM]
> >> Members[32]: 3 27 11 29 23 21 24 9 17 12 32 13 2 10 16 15 6 28 19 1 22
> 26 5\
> >> Nov 04 18:06:55 [10599] ip-10-109-145-175 corosync notice [QUORUM]
> >> Members[32]: 14 20 31 30 8 25 18 7 4
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> Nov 04 18:21:15 [17749] ip-10-178-149-131 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> update_cib_cache_cb: [cib_diff_notify] Patch aborted: Application of
> >> an update diff failed (-1006)
> >> Nov 04 18:21:15 [17749] ip-10-178-149-131 stonith-ng: info:
> >> apply_xml_diff: Digest mis-match: expected
> >> 01192e5118739b7c33c23f7645da3f45, calculated
> >> f8028c0c98526179ea5df0a2ba0d09de
> >> Nov 04 18:21:15 [17749] ip-10-178-149-131 stonith-ng: warning:
> >> cib_process_diff: Diff 1.15046.2 -> 1.15046.3 from local not
> >> applied to 1.15046.2: Failed application of an update diff
> >> Nov 04 18:21:15 [17749] ip-10-178-149-131 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> update_cib_cache_cb: [cib_diff_notify] Patch aborted: Application of
> >> an update diff failed (-1006)
> >> Nov 04 18:21:15 [17749] ip-10-178-149-131 stonith-ng: notice:
> >> cib_process_diff: Diff 1.15046.2 -> 1.15046.3 from local not
> >> applied to 1.15046.3: current "num_updates" is greater than required
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>
> >> ps. Sorry if should posted on corosync newsgroup, just the CIB
> >> synchronization fails, so this group seemed to me the right place.
> >
> > All of the HA mailing lists are merging into Cluster labs. This is the
> > right place to ask.
> >
> >> --
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Radoslaw Garbacz
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
--
Best Regards,
Radoslaw Garbacz
XtremeData Incorporation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20151104/203fe805/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Users
mailing list