Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:46:19PM -0600, Joel Burleson-Davis wrote: > That ended up being really helpful. Again, thanks so much for your response > Lars. > > I realize I had a misprint in my notes as well since I'm going in between > two setups. In order to keep the drbd resource from trying to promote > itself, the only_consistent value was set to a negative number > adjust_master_score="-10 10 1000 10000". when this is set to "0 10 1000 > 10000" the resource still tries to promote itself. The debug log was super > helpful with this: > > debug log with the Modified RA > > + drbd_update_master_score > + set -- -10 10 1000 10000 > + local only_consistent=-10 only_remote=10 local_ok=1000 > as_good_as_it_gets=10000 > > With unmodified RA but adjust_master_score set on the pacemaker resource > get's the error > > echo 'drbd(drbd): 2015/01/30_12:55:46' 'ERROR: BAD > adjust_master_score value -10 ; falling back to default' > > + drbd_update_master_score > + set -- 5 10 1000 10000 > + local only_consistent=5 only_remote=10 local_ok=1000 > as_good_as_it_gets=10000 > > echo 'drbd(sl_drbd): 2015/01/30_12:55:46' 'ERROR: BAD > adjust_master_score value -10 ; falling back to default' > > With the negative value in the RA, the resource never attempts to promote > itself: > > With the the adjust_master_score="0 10 1000 10000" (which doesn;t spit the > error about a bad value) the only consistent resource still attempts to > promote itself, giving the error: You likely need to upgrade your pacemaker. Which version of Pacemaker are you working with? Pacemaker is supposed to only attempt to promote, if there is a strictly positive master score attribute. Anything else would be a bug in pacemaker. whether implementation or documentation bug is up to Beekhof to decide. Or maybe I misunderstood the intended logic how "master score" attributes influence placement score calculations. You should find the full cib.xml of those transitions archived below /var/lib/ somewhere. You could feed them into crm_simulate and figure out why pacemaker decided to try promotion even with a master_score of 0. There have been pacemaker bugs in the past where a negative master score would cause bad side effects (potentially even preventing any "slave" role, iirc). Or causing a "stop", which would *remove* the master score, which would then allow a start again, ... cycling infinitely. Something like that. Or (in the "distant" past) where a target-role=Master would cause pacemaker to attempt to promote all instances, ignoring master-max and other things. > drbd_promote_0 on node2 'unknown error' (1): call=59, status=complete, > last-rc-change='Fri Jan 30 13:04:20 2015', queued=0ms, exec=15496ms > > and the debug shows: > + drbd_update_master_score > + set -- 0 10 1000 10000 > + local only_consistent=0 only_remote=10 local_ok=1000 > as_good_as_it_gets=10000 > > node2 has a resource score of 0 for the drbd resource. > > So it seems the issue is the adjust_master_score attribute won't accept a > negative number, however, if the RA is altered to have > adjust_master_score_default in the RA contains a negative number, there is > no issue. > > Is there a reason the resource agent doesn't want a negative value in > adjust_master_score? I would have assumed it would have taken any > legitimate resource score according to pacemaker. > See above. -- : Lars Ellenberg : http://www.LINBIT.com | Your Way to High Availability : DRBD, Linux-HA and Pacemaker support and consulting DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria. __ please don't Cc me, but send to list -- I'm subscribed