Thanks for all of the help! On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Jan Pokorný <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21/07/16 16:02 -0400, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote: > > So I should be using "pcs cluster cib > file" to get the config and then > > "pcs cluster cib-push --config file" to push it? > > If you are going to change the file using "pcs -f <file>" in the > interim, definitely. > > It's perhaps more intuitive to use "pcs cluster cib <file>" form, > but whatever you like. > > > Also I shouldn't have to add --config to the pcs -f commands right? > > True, --config only applies to those cib/cib-push commands > (and should be avoided/used, respectively as explained). > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Jan Pokorný <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On 21/07/16 13:52 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote: > >>> On 07/21/2016 01:35 PM, Stephano-Shachter, Dylan wrote: > >>>> I want to put the pacemaker config for my two node cluster in puppet > >>>> but, since it is just one cluster, it seems overkill to use the > corosync > >>>> module. If I just have puppet push cib.xml to each machine, will that > >>>> work? To make changes, I would just use pcs to update things and then > >>>> copy cib.xml back to puppet. I am not sure what happens when you > change > >>>> cib.xml while the cluster is running. Is it safe? > >>> > >>> No, pacemaker checksums the CIB and won't accept a file that isn't > >>> properly signed. Also, the cluster automatically synchronizes changes > >>> made to the CIB across all nodes, so there is no need to push changes > >>> more than once. > >>> > >>> Since you're using pcs, the update process could go like this: > >>> > >>> # Get the current configuration: > >>> pcs cluster cib --config > cib-new.xml > >> > >> As I feel guilty for contributing to this misconception with clufter > >> "pcs commands" output at one point (also see > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1328078; still part of the blame > >> is in pcs I believe: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1328066), > >> something has just started screaming in me: > >> > >> DO NOT USE pcs cluster cib WITH --config LIKE SUGGESTED, BUT RATHER: > >> > >> pcs cluster cib > cib-new.xml > >> > >>> # Make changes: > >>> pcs -f cib-new.xml <whatever-command-you-want> > >>> <etc.> > >> > >> ...as otherwise the modifications like this ^ would fail. > >> > >>> # Upload the configuration changes to the cluster: > >>> pcs cluster cib-push --config cib-new.xml > >> > >> Note that with cib-push, --config is OK, moreover it's vital as you > >> really don't want to propagate stale status section and what not > >> when changing modifying configuration. > >> > >> Yes, it's counterintuitive to have this asymmetry and it could be > >> made to work with some added effort at the side of pcs with > >> the original, disapproved, sequence as-is, but that's perhaps > >> sound of the future per the referenced pcs bug. > >> So take this idiom as a rule of thumb not to be questioned > >> any time soon. > >> > >>> Using "--config" is important so you only work with the configuration > >>> section of the CIB, and not the dynamically determined cluster > >>> properties and status. > >> > >> (This, apparently, justifies just the cib-push use.) > >> > >>> > >>> The first and last commands can be done on any one node, with the > >>> cluster running. The "pcs -f" commands can be done anywhere/anytime. > > -- > Jan (Poki) > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list: [email protected] > http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
