[Gluster-users] How to maintain HA using NFS clients if the NFS daemon process gets killed on a gluster node?

[Gmail]

Kris,

You can achieve what you want with Corosync-Pacemaker, Corosync is a heartbeat and Pacemaker is a cluster manager.
You can create a pacemaker cluster using the hosts used for the Gluster cluster, then configure a virtual IP resource and Gluster monitoring resources with the count of the nodes, and you have to put resource location constraint on the gluster resources as to make each resource stick with one of the gluster nodes, then you have to configure resource ordering constraint as for the virtual IP resource to start after the Gluster resource, so if the gluster daemon fails, the virtual IP resource will failover to another node as the Gluster deamon can’t come up.

If you are interested in this solution I can walk you through the configuration steps.


— Bishoy

> On Jan 27, 2016, at 10:00 PM, Soumya Koduri <skoduri at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/28/2016 11:08 AM, Kris Laib wrote:
>> Soumya,
>> 
>> CTDB failover works great if the server crashes or the NIC is pulled, but I don't believe there's anything in the CTDB setup that would cause it to realize there is a problem if only the glusterfs process responsible for serving NFS is killed but network connectivity with other CTDB nodes remains intact.     If others are able to kill just the PID for the associated "NFS Server on localhost" process and have CTDB issue a failover, I'd be very interested to know how their setup differs from mine.
> 
> Okay. I have personally never tried out CTDB setup. But FWIH we can configure CTDB (using a option in ctdbd.conf) to manage any service such a way that CTDB service as well goes down when the service stops (for any reason) initiating failover.
> 
> CC'in Niels and couple of others who shall be able to help you out here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Soumya
> 
>> 
>> Thanks for the nfs-ganesha suggestion, I'm not very familiar with that option and don't have enough time in my timeline to properly test it before moving to production, but I will look into it further for a possible solution down the road or if my deadline gets extended.   The FUSE client may be a good option for us as well, but I can't seem to get speeds higher than 30 MB/s using the Gluster FUSE client (I posted more details on that earlier today to this group as well, looking for advice there).
>> 
>> -Kris
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Soumya Koduri <skoduri at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:15 PM
>> To: Kris Laib; gluster-users at gluster.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] How to maintain HA using NFS clients if the NFS daemon process gets killed on a gluster node?
>> 
>> On 01/27/2016 09:39 PM, Kris Laib wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> We're getting ready to roll out Gluster using standard NFS from the
>>> clients, and CTDB and RRDNS to help facilitate HA.   I thought we were
>>> good to know, but recently had an issue where there wasn't enough memory
>>> on one of the gluster nodes in a test cluster, and OOM killer took out
>>> the NFS daemon process.   Since there was still IP traffic between nodes
>>> and the gluster-based local CTDB mount for the lock file was intact,
>>> CTDB didn't kick in an initiate failover, and all clients connected to
>> 
>> For gluster-NFS, CTDB is typically configured to maintain high
>> availability and I guess you have done the same. Could you check why
>> CTDB hasn't initiated IP failover?
>> 
>> An alternative solution is to use nfs-ganesha [1][2] to provide NFS
>> support for gluster volumes and can be configured to maintain HA using
>> gluster CLI.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Soumya
>> 
>> [1]
>> http://blog.gluster.org/2015/10/linux-scale-out-nfsv4-using-nfs-ganesha-and-glusterfs-one-step-at-a-time/
>> 
>> [2]
>> http://gluster.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/NFS-Ganesha%20GlusterFS%20Intergration/
>> (section# Using Highly Available Active-Active NFS-Ganesha And GlusterFS
>> cli)
>> 
>>> the node where NFS was killed lost their connections.   We'll obviously
>>> fix the lack of memory, but going forward how can we protect against
>>> clients getting disconnected if the NFS daemon should be stopped for any
>>> reason?
>>> 
>>> Our cluster is 3 nodes, 1 is a silent witness node to help with split
>>> brain, and the other 2 host the volumes with one brick per node, and 1x2
>>> replication.
>>> 
>>> Is there something incorrect about my setup, or is this a known downfall
>>> to using standard NFS mounts with gluster?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Kris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gluster-users mailing list
>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160127/f1b09f0f/attachment.html>