[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] Dependency graphs, order of startup and failover handling



So, the short answer to your question is, "Well, not yet, but, er, funny
that you should ask ..."

On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 22:11 +0200, Eftychios Eftychiou wrote:
> Got a few questions regarding RHCS. Would be grateful if someone could
> answer them.
> 
> 1. Fencing in a two node cluster according to the FAQ could lead to
> each node trying to fence each other resulting in total cluster
> blowup. The suggested solution of that problem was to use serialized
> fencing devices. From my understanding the above scenario can occur
> because in a two node environment each node has 1 vote so there is no
> way to break the tie. In any case in a total unrelated section it is
> mentioned that a quorum disk can be used to break the tie. Well I am a
> bit confused since in the section it was mentioned that quorum disk
> support was initially removed from RHEL4 but then was added
> optionally. What is the proper way to create a two node cluster ? Is
> quorum disk required if a serialized fence device is used? Will quorum
> disks usage be phased out in the future ? If yes how do you plan to
> address the issues in a 2 node cluster. 
> 
> 2. I have seen veritas cluster server (VCS)  being configured and it
> had the ability to define a dependency graph of the various services
> available. Is such a thing possible on RHCS? Let me be more specific.

Ironically, not... yet.  It's a month or two out at the least.

I have basic dependency graph generation and transition-calculation
using a best-first-search in my sandbox, but there are a couple of bugs
I have to fix before I commit it to CVS (and the initial commit will
only be a PoC; it won't be integrated for at least another month or
two).

It allows you to specify:

- require-always: A must be running before B may start, and if A is
restarted, B must restart (note: A moving to the 'failed' state will
cause B to go to the 'stopped' state)
- require-start: A must running before B may start, but if A restarts,
nothing happens to B (e.g. it's smart enough to reconnect).  Same about
moving to 'failed' state though.
- colocate-never: when both A and B are running, A must never run on the
same node as B
- colocate-always: when both A and B are running, A must always run on
the same node as B

> 2 node cluster. Only one node is active running all services. 2nd node
> is passive and in case of failure should take over from node 1. 
> 
> Application X depends on the existence of network Z 
> Application Y also depends on Z
> Application U, I and O depend on X 
> Application G depends on nothing directly.

This can mostly be handled now, using 'recover' instead of stop/start
cycles and custom resource agents:

   <service name="foo">
      <ip ... monitor_link="yes"> <!-- monitors the link for 
                                       the service -->
         <app_x>
           <app_u/>
           <app_i/>
           <app_o/>
         </app_x>
         <app_y/>
      </ip>
   </service>
   <service name="bar">
     <script name="G" />
   </service>

> Is is possible to configure the cluster to behave in the following
> manner 
> If U or I or O die restart them
> If X dies the stop all applications and relocate them

You mean U, I, and O, right?  G doesn't depend on X.

> if Y dies then restart only Y
> if Z dies Relocate all applications to Node 2

... except G ...

> If G dies restart it
> Of course if there are multiple false restarts all applications should
> be moved to node 2 

Nothing for 'false starts' is currently in (as seen in RHCS3).  That's
probably a "soon" thing;

> The above applications/components should be started in the following
> order
> Z or G ( G does not depend on anything )
> X or Y
> O, U,I

There are actually several start orders given the dependency set you
described, but yes, that's one of them.

> The actual setup is quite more complicated with multiple dependencies.
> I know it is possible to build dependencies in the service definition
> however I do not see how the above can be accomplished. 

Well, if you don't craft special resource agents, then it can't
currently be done.  Attached is an example cluster config w/
dependencies.  Running it through the test tool:

Start service:G on 1 [1]
Start service:Z on 1 [2]
Start service:Y on 1 [3]
Start service:X on 1 [4]
Start service:O on 1 [5]
Start service:U on 1 [6]
Start service:I on 1 [7]

Application of those operations and running it through graphviz (dot)
yields the attached png as a result.

(come on, you gotta run it through graphviz!)

-- Lon

Attachment: e.png
Description: PNG image

Attachment: eftychios.conf
Description: application/xml

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]