IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
currently wrong as online_node_usage doesn't considers counting the
target node if the source node isn't considered online (=
operational) anymore
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
run_workers is responsible for updating the state after workers have
exited. if the current LRM state is 'active', but a shutdown_request was
issued in 'restart' mode (like on package upgrades), this call is the
only one made in the LRM work() loop.
skipping it if there are active services means the following sequence of
events effectively keeps the LRM from restarting or making any progress:
- start HA migration on node A
- reload LRM on node A while migration is still running
even once the migration is finished, the service count is still >= 1
since the LRM never calls run_workers (directly or via
manage_resources), so the service having been migrated is never noticed.
maintenance mode (i.e., rebooting the node with shutdown policy migrate)
does call manage_resources and thus run_workers, and will proceed once
the last worker has exited.
reported by a user:
https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/lrm-hangs-when-updating-while-migration-is-running.108628
Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
every LRM round is scheduled to run for 10s but we spend only half
of that to actively trying to run workers (in the max_worker limit).
Raise that to 80% duty cycle.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
If a setup has a lot VMs we may run into the time limit from the
run_worker loop before processing all workers, which can easily
happen if an admin did not increased their default of max_workers in
the setup, but even with a bigger max_worker setting one can run into
it.
That combined with the fact that we sorted just by the $sid
alpha-numerically means that CTs where preferred over VMs (C comes
before V) and additionally lower VMIDs where preferred too.
That means that a set of SIDs had a lower chance of ever get actually
run, which is naturally not ideal at all.
Improve on that behavior by adding a counter to the queued worker and
preferring those that have a higher one, i.e., spent more time
waiting on getting actively run.
Note, due to the way the stop state is enforced, i.e., always
enqueued as new worker, its start-try counter will be reset every
round and thus have a lower priority compared to other request
states. We probably want to differ between a stop request when the
service is/was in another state just before and the time a stop is
just re-requested even if a service was already stopped for a while.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
If all services in 'fence' state are gone from a node (e.g. by
removing the services) before fence_node() was successful, a node
would get stuck in the 'fence' state. Avoid this by calling
fence_node() if the node is in 'fence' state, regardless of service
state.
Reported in the community forum:
https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/ha-migration-stuck-is-doing-nothing.94469/
Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
[ T: track test change of new test ]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
This fixes point 2. of commit 3addeeb - avoiding that a LRM goes
active as long as the CRM still has it in (pending) `fence` state,
which can happen after a watchdog reset + fast boot. This avoids that
we interfere with the CRM acquiring the lock, which is all the more
important once a future commit gets added that ensures a node isn't
stuck in `fence` state if there's no service configured (anymore) due
to admin manually removing them during fencing.
We explicitly fix the startup first to better show how it works in
the test framework, but as the test/sim hardware can now delay the
CRM now while keeping LRM running, the second test (i.e.,
test-service-command9) should still trigger after the next commit, if
this one would be reverted or broken otherwise.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
this test's log is showing up two issues we'll fix in later commits
1. If a node gets fenced and an admin removes all services before the
fencing completes, the manager will ignore that node's state and
thus never make the "fence" -> "unknown" transition required by
the state machine
2. If a node is marked as "fence" in the manager's node status, but
has no service, its LRM's check for "pending fence request"
returns a false negative and the node start trying to acquire its
LRM work lock. This can even succeed in practice, e.g. the events:
1. Node A gets fenced (whyever that is), CRM is working on
acquiring its lock while Node A reboots
2. Admin is present and removes all services of Node A from HA
2. Node A booted up fast again, LRM is already starting before
CRM could ever get the lock (<< 2 minutes)
3. Service located on Node A gets added to HA (again)
4. LRM of Node A will actively try to get lock as it has no
service in fence state and is (currently) not checking the
manager's node state, so is ignorant of the not yet processed
fence -> unknown transition
(note: above uses 2. twice as those points order doesn't matter)
As a result the CRM may never get to acquire the lock of Node A's
LRM, and thus cannot finish the fence -> unknown transition,
resulting in user confusion and possible weird effects.
I the current log one can observe 1. by the missing fence tries of
the master and 2. can be observed by the LRM acquiring the lock while
still being in "fence" state from the masters POV.
We use two tests so that point 2. is better covered later on
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
This allows to simulate situations where there's some asymmetry
required in service type scheduling, e.g., if we the master should
not pickup LRM changes just yet - something that can happen quite
often in the real world due to scheduling not being predictable,
especially across different hosts.
The implementation is pretty simple for now, that also means we just
do not care about watchdog updates for the skipped service, meaning
that one is limited to skip two 20s rounds max before self-fencing
kicks in.
This can be made more advanced once required.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Until now we had at most one extra param, so lets get the all
remaining params in an array and use that, fallback staid the same.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
We wrongly dropped the semi-manual postinst in favor of a fully
auto-generated one, but we always need to generate the trigger
actions ourself - cannot work otherwise.
Fix 3166752 ("postinst: use auto generated postinst")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Mostly for convenience for the admin, to avoid the need for removing
it completely, which is always frowned uppon by most users.
Follows the same logic and safety criteria as the transition to
`stopped` on getting into the `disabled` state in the
`next_state_error`.
As we previously had a rather immediate transition from recovery ->
error (not anymore) this is actually restoring a previous feature and
does not adds new implications or the like.
Still, add a test which also covers that the recovery state does not
allows things like stop or migrate to happen.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Add a test which covers that the recovery state does not allows
things like stop or migrate to happen.
Also add one for disabling at the end, this is currently blocked too
but will change in the next patch, as it can be a safe way out for
the admin to reset the service without removing it.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
With the new 'recovery' state introduced a commit previously we get a
clean transition, and thus actual difference, from to-be-fenced and
fenced.
Use that to avoid going into the error state when we did not find any
possible new node we could recover the service too.
That can happen if the user uses the HA manager for local services,
which is an OK use-case as long as the service is restricted to a
group with only that node. But previous to that we could never
recover such services if their node failed, as they got always put
into the "error" dummy/final state.
But that's just artificially limiting ourself to get a false sense of
safety.
Nobody, touches the services while it's in the recovery state, no LRM
not anything else (as any normal API call gets just routed to the HA
stack anyway) so there's just no chance that we get a bad
double-start of the same services, with resource access collisions
and all the bad stuff that could happen (and note, this will in
practice only matter for restricted services, which are normally only
using local resources, so here it wouldn't even matter if it wasn't
safe already - but it is, double time!).
So, the usual transition guarantees still hold:
* only the current master does transitions
* there needs to be a OK quorate partition to have a master
And, for getting into recovery the following holds:
* the old node's lock was acquired by the master, which means it was
(self-)fenced -> resource not running
So as "recovery" is a no-op state we got only into once the nodes was
fenced we can continue recovery, i.e., try to find a new node for t
the failed services.
Tests:
* adapt the exist recovery test output to match the endless retry for
finding a new node (vs. the previous "go into error immediately"
* add a test where the node comes up eventually, so that we cover
also the recovery to the same node it was on, previous to a failure
* add a test with a non-empty start-state, the restricted failed node
is online again. This ensure that the service won't get started
until the HA manager actively recovered it, even if it's staying on
that node.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
It's not much but repeated a few times, and as a next commit will add
another such time let's just refactor it to a local private helper
with a very explicit name and comment about what implications calling
it has.
Take the chance and add some more safety comments too.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
This basically makes recovery just an active state transition, as can
be seen from the regression tests - no other semantic change is
caused.
For the admin this is much better to grasp than services still marked
as "fence" when the failed node is already fenced or even already up
again.
Code-wise it makes sense too, to make the recovery part not so hidden
anymore, but show it was it is: an actual part of the FSM
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To see if just a bit or many tests are broken it is useful to
sometimes run all, and not just exit after first failure.
Allow this as opt-in feature.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
The service addition and deletion, and also the artificial delay
(useful to force continuation of the HW) commands where missing
completely.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
both, `override_dh_systemd_enable` and `override_dh_systemd_start`
are ignored with current compat level 12, and will become an error in
level >= 13, so drop them and use `override_dh_installsystemd` for
both of the previous uses.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
