Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 804805
fence_node -U fences instead of unfencing
Last modified: 2012-06-20 10:40:31 EDT
Description of problem:
While starting /etc/init.d/cman there is a call to unfence_self()
which does fence_node -U
This actually fences the host at least with my fence_brocade.
s2# fence_node -U
unfence s2.example.com success
Mar 19 21:29:30 s2 kernel: qla2xxx 0000:05:00.0: LOOP DOWN detected (2 3 0 0).
Mar 19 21:29:40 s2 fence_node: unfence v2.example.com success
It actually disables both ports (6,7) instead of enabling them...
Same happens when I do /etc/init.d/cman start or when the machine boots.
This is my configuration:
<clusternode name="s2.example.com" nodeid="2">
<device name="san" port="6"/>
<device name="san" port="7"/>
<device action="enable" name="san" port="6"/>
<device action="enable" name="san" port="7"/>
My fence device (Brocade 300):
<fencedevice agent="fence_brocade" ipaddr="10.0.0.1" login="username" name="san" passwd="pass"/>
From command line the fence agent works fine
# fence_brocade -l username -p password -a 10.0.0.1 -o enable/disable -n 6/7
Furthermore, I believe the call to fence_node -U in /etc/init.d/cman should be done prior to qdisk.
The qdisk device in on the SAN, so until the ports are enabled, qdisk device is not available.
I've added debug actions in /usr/sbin/fence_brocade today
and when I'm doing
Tue Mar 20 11:19:11 2012
success: portdisable 6
Tue Mar 20 11:19:18 2012
success: portdisable 7
So it's actually doing portdisable instead of portenable
We "standardized" on "action=" long ago, but it appears fence_brocade was never updated. It still only uses "option=". If you try option="enable" it may work.
WRT qdisk, I'd first check whether you really need qdisk at all; it's best not to use it.
I've added both (just in case it gets updated) and now it works fine :)
<device action="enable" option="enable" name="san" port="6"/>
<device action="enable" option="enable" name="san" port="7"/>
I'm using two-node-cluster so I thought I should try qdisk. I've read that it helps...
Anyway shouldn't unfencing be performed prior to qdisk initialization?
(In reply to comment #4)
> I'm using two-node-cluster so I thought I should try qdisk. I've read that it
> Anyway shouldn't unfencing be performed prior to qdisk initialization?
It is best to avoid qdisk in this scenario and use cman two_node + fence delay but it also depends on many other configuration bits. Please submit a GSS ticket for an architecture review and we will be able to provide more information.
Marek, can we fix fence_brocade to behave consistently?
Fixed in upstream:
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.