[pgpool-general: 2969] Re: pgpool 3.3 and watchdog

Joar Jegleim joar.jegleim at gmail.com
Wed Jun 25 19:56:29 JST 2014

ok I see.
I'm in the middle of moving to an other town + got vacation until 1st.
of august.
I won't be able to follow these things until sometime in august :)


On 23 June 2014 00:30, Alexandru Cardaniuc <cardaniuc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Joar,
> I started another thread on this issue yesterday. All the information is
> there with config settings, logs and failover scripts.
> The problem is that the failover script according to the logs was NOT
> even executed. So, the backend was properly detached, but the failover
> script not executed... Very strange...
> Joar Jegleim <joar.jegleim at gmail.com> writes:
>> Hi,
>> I haven't seen this, I'm also running 9.3 and 3.3.3 . I've setup a lot
>> of logging though in my failover, basebackup and pgpool remote start
>> scripts. I've come across several errors that turn out to be
>> misconfiguration on my part, it could be anything from host
>> authentication (ssh), SElinux blocking 'something' to configuration of
>> pgpool itself .
>> My 2 cent would be to add as much logging as possible to the scripts
>> that handle the failover, then at least you may see where things stop
>> . Also check your postgres logs, I've noticed output from basebackup
>> and pgpoo remote start end up in the postgres logs, unless you've
>> redirected the elsewhere .
>> jj
>> On 11 June 2014 08:55, Alexandru Cardaniuc <cardaniuc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Thing is I already have a cluster configured with 2 nodes and
>>> watchdog. I use PostgreSQL 9.3 and Pgpool 3.3.3 and for the most
>>> part it seems to be working well. But, I had one case recently where
>>> I did a failover where I failed the master node, and pgpool properly
>>> identified the master node as failed and detached it from the
>>> cluster (status 3 in pcp_node_info), but didn't run the script to do
>>> the trigger on the slave node for some reason. So, even though the
>>> traffic was properly redirected to the new master (former slave),
>>> this new master (former slave) was still in READ_ONLY mode. Can't
>>> find what would be an issue. Is that a known issue? What should I be
>>> looking at?
>>> Joar Jegleim <joar.jegleim at gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Hi Alexandru,
>>>> I looked into pacemaker ++ and decided I didn't need take that
>>>> route for my (only) 2 node setup . I've been hardening my 2 node
>>>> pgpool, watchdog, floating ip master / slave setup . I plan on
>>>> publishing my whole setup as a howto when done ( if my boss give me
>>>> go) , I'll keep you posted.
>>>> Be patient, this takes time, don't expect any howto on this until
>>>> august / september, mabye even october ( got a big release due in
>>>> sept. which I'm working hard to make sure our pgpool failover
>>>> cluster may serve) .
>>>> And please cc my mail directly when mailing me, since I filter all
>>>> my mailinglist mail, and came over your post here by accident :)
>>>> regards Joar Jegleim
>>>> On 9 June 2014 21:45, Alexandru Cardaniuc <cardaniuc at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Joar, Can you keep us in the loop on your research? That kind
>>>>> of setup would be something interesting to consider if it
>>>>> increases the robustness of the clustering solution. Joar Jegleim
>>>>> <joar.jegleim at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> Please forgive me, false alarm, it works now. When I was
>>>>>> reproducing this to send you the logs it suddenly worked (?) . I
>>>>>> suspect it's because I've disabled iptables since I was working
>>>>>> with this last time. I've previously opened up heartbeat port
>>>>>> 9694 and watchdog port 9000 between the 2 nodes (+ pgpool and
>>>>>> postgres ports of course), I thought mabye that was enough .
>>>>>> Mabye I will have to open up for the delegate ip as well, or
>>>>>> mabye there are some more ports I will have to open up. Anyway, I
>>>>>> will continue testing with no iptables, and figure this thing out
>>>>>> when pgpool and postgres configuration / testing / tuning etc..
>>>>>> is done .
>>>>>> As an other note I was looking into using pacemaker and all the
>>>>>> cluster utilities that comes with CentOS yesterday, I wonder if
>>>>>> anyone have any experience in using pacemaker + pgpool VS. simply
>>>>>> using pgpool + watchdog and delegate ip . My first impression of
>>>>>> pacemaker is that it seem pretty robust + mabye I should consider
>>>>>> proper fencing of failed nodes . On the other side going down
>>>>>> that route my setup becomes a whole lot more complex so I'm not
>>>>>> sure yet which is better for my setup which most probably will
>>>>>> consist of 2 nodes ( I'd have to disable cuorum and stuff ) . I
>>>>>> will probably look into both solutions and try figure out what
>>>>>> works best for us . Any input on this is much appreciated .
>>>>> -- "Never let school interfere with your education." - Mark Twain
>>>>> _______________________________________________ pgpool-general
>>>>> mailing list pgpool-general at pgpool.net
>>>>> http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
>>> -- "It's very well to be thrifty, but don't amass a hoard of
>>> regrets." - Charles D'Orleans
>>> _______________________________________________ pgpool-general
>>> mailing list pgpool-general at pgpool.net
>>> http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
> --
> "If we really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it,
> because the answer is not separate from the problem."
> - Krishnamurti
> _______________________________________________
> pgpool-general mailing list
> pgpool-general at pgpool.net
> http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general

Joar Jegleim
Homepage: http://cosmicb.no
Linkedin: http://no.linkedin.com/in/joarjegleim
fb: http://www.facebook.com/joar.jegleim
AKA: CosmicB @Freenode


More information about the pgpool-general mailing list