[pgpool-general: 2028] Re: Problem with watchdog...

Fernando Buzon fbuzon at creddefense.com
Wed Aug 14 06:30:46 JST 2013


hummm...
OK, thanks for information!
Very good.

Good luck!


2013/8/13 Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at postgresql.org>

> > No problem...
> > If your active server is the number 2 then run the command (killall -9
> > pgpool) himself.
> > You will see that all processes die and the interface with the ip
> delegate
> > will remain active. This is the case...
>
> That is only applicatable to pgpool-II 3.2.
>
> 3.3's watchdog monitors parent pgpool process is alive. If it's gone,
> release the ip and tells standby watchdog that it goes to "down"
> status.
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
>
> > 2013/8/13 Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at postgresql.org>
> >
> >> > You said: "I killed server2 pgpool-II parent process by kill -9"
> >> > Try "killall -9 pgpool" in active server...
> >>
> >> Sorry for confusion but in my case server2 is the active.
> >> --
> >> Tatsuo Ishii
> >> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> >> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> >> Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> >>
> >> > The stand by will grow up the delegate IP and the same will still on
> old
> >> > active server and will conflict.
> >> > So I am using a shell script in crontab to check this and restart
> pgpool
> >> if
> >> > necessary.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2013/8/12 Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at postgresql.org>
> >> >
> >> >> > On 08/05/13 14:07, Fernando Buzon wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> FINAL:
> >> >> >> Like I said, all is working nice.
> >> >> >> And now I am with the 2 pgpools up and working again.
> >> >> >> The escaled pgpool is pgpool-01.
> >> >> >> I stop it with "killall -9 pgpool" and now wd_lifecheck worked
> fine
> >> on
> >> >> >> pgpool-02!
> >> >> >> I dont now what was the problem early, but now is working!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe you fix some small issue in the config during your testing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> log on pgpool-02:
> >> >> >> 2013-08-05 17:52:42 LOG:   pid 11524: wd_lifecheck: lifecheck
> failed
> >> 3
> >> >> >> times. pgpool 1 (10.0.0.21:5432 <http://10.0.0.21:5432>) seems
> not
> >> to
> >> >> be working
> >> >> >> 2013-08-05 17:52:42 LOG:   pid 11524: wd_escalation: escalated to
> >> >> master pgpool
> >> >> >> 2013-08-05 17:52:42 LOG:   pid 11524: wd_escalation:  escalated to
> >> >> >> delegate_IP holder
> >> >> >> 2013-08-05 17:52:52 LOG:   pid 11524: wd_lifecheck: lifecheck
> failed
> >> 3
> >> >> >> times. pgpool 1 (10.0.0.21:5432 <http://10.0.0.21:5432>) seems
> not
> >> to
> >> >> be working
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So rest only one problem, that is how to down delegate_ip from the
> >> >> pgpool-01?
> >> >> >> Because both servers is responding to delegate_ip.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, the reason it doesn't get removed on pgpool-01 is because the
> >> >> killall -9
> >> >> > kills the pgpool processes including the watchdog without any hope
> of
> >> >> them
> >> >> > running the ifconfig down command.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That said, you just need to run the ifconfig down command on
> >> pgpool-01.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm sure what you're trying to simulate is a crash, but I'm not
> sure
> >> >> killing
> >> >> > ALL the pgpool processes with -9 is a good simulation, because more
> >> >> likely
> >> >> > only one of the backends would crash.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe one of the other folks on the list can suggest a better
> >> simulation
> >> >> for a
> >> >> > crashing pgpool service.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have tried with pgpool-II 3.3.0 to test the case. Initially
> >> >> "server2" is the watchdog active, and "server1" is the watchdog
> >> >> "standby".
> >> >>
> >> >> I killed server2 pgpool-II parent process by kill -9.
> >> >>
> >> >> - server2 releases the VIP. server2 watchdog goes to "down" status.
> >> >>
> >> >> - server1 becomes active and grab the VIP.
> >> >>
> >> >> So my guess is, 3.2's watchdog is not capable to handle the
> situation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pgpool-II 3.3's watchdog is much more enhanced than 3.2's. I
> recommend
> >> >> to use 3.3 if you want to seriously use watchdog.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Tatsuo Ishii
> >> >> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> >> >> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> >> >> Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> >> >>
> >>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.sraoss.jp/pipermail/pgpool-general/attachments/20130813/086ecd6f/attachment.html>


More information about the pgpool-general mailing list