Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
'Got it. Thanks.
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:11:03 +0100
From: andreas at hastexo.com
To: drbd-user at lists.linbit.com
Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] “The peer's disk size is too small!” messages on attempts to add rebuilt pee
On 12/21/2012 06:39 PM, Anthony G. wrote:
>> well, you could try the one I put in my previous answer ... and it does
>> not need to be of the exact size on nfs1 ... equal or more
>>
>
> I will try that. It's probably apparent, but I'm new to LVM and DRBD.
> Is the
> "drbdadm adjust nfs" on nfs2 something that I can do while that system is
> up-and-running and servicing Production requests?
Yes that can be done online ... use "-d" switch for dry-run and you
should only see a connect command as output
Regards,
Andreas
>
> Thanks, again,
>
> -Anthony
>
>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:12:23 +0100
>> From: andreas at hastexo.com
>> To: drbd-user at lists.linbit.com
>> CC: agenerette at hotmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] “The peer's disk size is too small!” messages
> on attempts to add rebuilt pee
>>
>>
>> Please don't bypass the mailing-list ...
>>
>> On 12/21/2012 06:04 PM, Anthony G. wrote:
>> > Thank you for your input. That was my first thought, but I caught hell
>> > trying
>> > to get the partition sizes to match. I'm not sure which size reading I
>> > need to
>> > take on -nfs2 and then which specific lvcreate command I need to
> execute on
>> > -nfs1 to get the size on the latter set properly.
>>
>> well, you could try the one I put in my previous answer ... and it does
>> not need to be of the exact size on nfs1 ... equal or more
>>
>> >
>> > I've recreated the lv, though (just to try and make some progress), and
>> > am now
>> > getting the following, when I try to 'service drbd start' on -nfs1:
>> >
>> > DRBD's startup script waits for the peer node(s) to appear.
>> > - In case this node was already a degraded cluster before the
>> > reboot the timeout is 0 seconds. [degr-wfc-timeout]
>> > - If the peer was available before the reboot the timeout will
>> > expire after 0 seconds. [wfc-timeout]
>> > (These values are for resource 'nfs'; 0 sec -> wait forever)
>> > To abort waiting enter 'yes' [ 123]:yes
>> >
>> > 'netstat -a' doesn't show -nfs2 listening on port 7789, but I do see
>> > drbd-related
>> > processes running on that box.
>>
>> so the resource on nfs2 is in disconnected state .... do a "drbdadm
>> adjust nfs" on nfs2
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>> >
>> > -Anthony
>> >
>> > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:25:01 +0100
>> > From: andreas at hastexo.com
>> > To: drbd-user at lists.linbit.com
>> > Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] “The peer's disk size is too small!” messages
>> > on attempts to add rebuilt pee
>> >
>> > On 12/21/2012 12:13 AM, Anthony G. wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> There's so much information relating to my current configuration, that
>> >> I'm not sure what I should post here. Let me start by saying that I had
>> >> two Ubuntu 10.04 hosts configured in a DRBD relationship: sf02-nfs1
>> >> (primary) and sf0-nfs2 (secondary). -nfs1 suffered a major filesystem
>> >> fault. I had to make -nfs2 primary and rebuild -nfs1. I want to
>> >> eventually have all of my machines on 12.04, so I took this as an
>> >> opportunity to set -nfs1 on that OS.
>> >>
>> >> Here is a copy of my main configuration file (/etc/drbd.d/nfs.res):
>> >>
>> >> resource nfs {
>> >> on sf02-nfs2 {
>> >> device /dev/drbd0;
>> >> disk /dev/ubuntu/drbd-nfs;
>> >> address 10.0.6.2:7789;
>> >> meta-disk internal;
>> >> }
>> >> on sf02-nfs1 {
>> >> device /dev/drbd0;
>> >> disk /dev/ubuntuvg/drbd-nfs;
>> >> address 10.0.6.1:7789;
>> >> meta-disk internal;
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm trying to re-introduce -nfs1 into the DRBD relationship and am
>> >> having trouble. I have:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 1.) created the resource "nfs" on -nfs1 ('drbdadm create-md nfs')
>> >>
>> >> 2.) run 'drbdadm primary nfs' on -nfs2 and 'drbdadm secondary nfs'
> on -nfs1.
>> >>
>> >> 3.) run drbdadm -- --overwrite-data-of-peer primary all' from -nfs2.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But /var/log/kern.log shows:
>> >>
>> >> =====
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.843938] block drbd0:
>> >> Handshake successful: Agreed network protocol version 91
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.843949] block drbd0: conn(
>> >> WFConnection -> WFReportParams )
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844171] block drbd0:
> Starting
>> >> asender thread (from drbd0_receiver [2452])
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844539] block drbd0:
>> >> data-integrity-alg: <not-used>
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844610] block drbd0: *The
>> >> peer's disk size is too small!*
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844617] block drbd0: conn(
>> >> WFReportParams -> Disconnecting )
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844626] block drbd0: error
>> >> receiving ReportSizes, l: 32!
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844680] block drbd0: asender
>> >> terminated
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844691] block drbd0:
>> >> Terminating asender thread
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844746] block drbd0:
>> >> Connection closed
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844755] block drbd0: conn(
>> >> Disconnecting -> StandAlone )
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844791] block drbd0:
> receiver
>> >> terminated
>> >>
>> >> Dec 19 19:55:47 sf02-nfs2 kernel: [9284165.844794] block drbd0:
>> >> Terminating receiver thread
>> >>
>> >> =====
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, it seems that a difference in the size of drbd0 on the respective
>> >> machines is the source of my trouble. 'cat /proc/partitions' (output
>> >> pasted at the end of this message) on each machine tells me that
> -nfs2's
>> >> partition is around 348148 blocks larger than -nfs1's. -nfs2 contains
>> >> my company's Production data, so I do not, of course, want to do
>> >> anything destructive there. I can, however, certainly recreate the
>> >> resource on -nfs1.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone out there know what steps I need to take to make the
>> >> partition sizes match? Of course, I'm working under the belief that the
>> >> "peer's disk size is too small" message points up the source of my
>> >> trouble. Let me know, of course, if I need to post more information on
>> >> my setup.
>> >
>> > You are using LVM, so simply resize the lv below DRBD on nfs1 to be at
>> > least of the same size or bigger ala:
>> >
>> > lvresize -L+200M ubuntuvg/drbd-nfs
>> >
>> > ... then recreate meta-data on that resized lv on nfs1 and on nfs1 do a:
>> >
>> > drbdadm up nfs
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Andreas
>> >
>> > --
>> > Need help with DRBD?
>> > http://www.hastexo.com/now
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -Anthony
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ==========
>> >>
>> >> root at sf02-nfs1:/dev/ubuntuvg# cat /proc/partitions
>> >>
>> >> major minor #blocks name
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 8 0 1952448512 sda
>> >>
>> >> 8 1 512000 sda1
>> >>
>> >> 8 2 1 sda2
>> >>
>> >> 8 5 1886388224sda5
>> >>
>> >> 252 0 20971520 dm-0
>> >>
>> >> 252 1 5242880 dm-1
>> >>
>> >> 252 2 1706033152 dm-2
>> >>
>> >> 147 0 1705981052 drbd0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> root at sf02-nfs2:/etc/drbd.d# cat /proc/partitions
>> >>
>> >> major minor #blocks name
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 8 0 1952448512 sda
>> >>
>> >> 8 1 248832 sda1
>> >>
>> >> 8 2 1 sda2
>> >>
>> >> 8 5 1952196608 sda5
>> >>
>> >> 252 0 209715200 dm-0ubuntuvg-root
>> >>
>> >> 252 1 36098048 dm-1ubuntuvg-swap
>> >>
>> >> 252 2 1706381312 dm-2ubuntuvg-drbd--nfs
>> >>
>> >> 147 0 1706329200 drbd0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> drbd-user mailing list
>> >> drbd-user at lists.linbit.com
>> >> http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________ drbd-user mailing list
>> > drbd-user at lists.linbit.com
>> > http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> drbd-user mailing list
> drbd-user at lists.linbit.com
> http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
>
_______________________________________________
drbd-user mailing list
drbd-user at lists.linbit.com
http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/attachments/20121221/7da327e2/attachment.htm>