[torqueusers] Questions about pbs_server --ha

Victor Gregorio vgregorio at penguincomputing.com
Mon Apr 13 12:00:24 MDT 2009


Thanks Ken,

Taking your advice, I configured the two pbs_servers to run an
active/passive HA configuration using CentOS's Heartbeat services.  I am
no longer running pbs_server with --ha, since only one pbs_server
instance will be running at a time.

Both primary and secondary pbs_servers still use a shared NFS partition
(on a third machine) for /var/spool/torque/server_priv.

Unfortunately, there is still a server.lock file left by the primary
pbs_server when is starts up.  So, when the primary system critically
fails, the secondary system cannot start pbs_server.

Thoughts?

-- 
Victor Gregorio
Penguin Computing

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:59:01AM -0600, Ken Nielson wrote:
> Victor,
> 
> Your observation about torque's --ha option is correct. If the controlling pbs_server just goes away the lock on the file will remain in place. You can delete the lock file on the NFS share and a new file will be created by the redundant pbs_server and the process will start.
> 
> We understand that this is not the ideal way to make torque highly available. We should put this on the list of things to do to help improve torque. 
> 
> If it is possible you may try using a high availability OS. That is redundant systems. If one machine goes down another machine is able to load and run the image of the failed system. I know this option requires far more resources but I just wanted to suggest it in case it is something you can do.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Ken Nielson
> Cluster Resources
> knielson at clusterresources.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Victor Gregorio" <vgregorio at penguincomputing.com>
> To: "Ken Nielson" <knielson at clusterresources.com>
> Cc: torqueusers at supercluster.org
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:14:14 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
> Subject: Re: [torqueusers] Questions about pbs_server --ha
> 
> Hello Ken,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.  I have a third system which exports NFS storage
> for both pbs_servers' /var/spool/torque/server_priv.  For now, there is
> no NFS redundancy.
> 
>     * export options: *(rw,sync,no_root_squash)
>     * mount options on both pbs_servers: bg,intr,soft,rw
> 
> -- 
> Victor Gregorio
> Penguin Computing
> 
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 09:57:41AM -0600, Ken Nielson wrote:
> > Victor,
> > 
> > Tell us about your NFS setup. Where does the physical disk reside and is it setup to fail over to another system if the primary NFS fails?
> > 
> > Ken Nielson
> > --------------------
> > Cluster Resources
> > knielson at clusterresources.com
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Victor Gregorio" <vgregorio at penguincomputing.com>
> > To: torqueusers at supercluster.org
> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:54:56 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
> > Subject: [torqueusers] Questions about pbs_server --ha
> > 
> > Hey folks :)
> > 
> > I've been lurking about for a bit and finally had a question to post.
> > 
> > So, I am using two systems with pbs_server --ha and a shared NFS mount
> > for /var/spool/torque/server_priv.  In my testing, I bring down the
> > primary server by pulling the power plug.  Unfortunately, the secondary
> > server does not pick up and become the primary pbs_server.
> > 
> > Is this because /var/spool/torque/server_priv/server.lock is not removed
> > when the primary server has a critical failure?
> > 
> > So, I tried removing the server.lock file, but the secondary pbs_server
> > --ha instance never picks up and becomes primary.  What is the trigger
> > to activate a passive pbs_server --ha?
> > 
> > Any advice is appreciated.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > -- 
> > Victor Gregorio
> > Penguin Computing
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > torqueusers mailing list
> > torqueusers at supercluster.org
> > http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers


More information about the torqueusers mailing list