XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Xen Orchestra web UI becomes unresponsive when an NFS backup remote goes offline

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Unsolved Xen Orchestra
    12 Posts 4 Posters 368 Views 4 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • F
      frb94 @poddingue
      last edited by

      @poddingue

      Thank you very much for the answer.

      This is my idea for now, but i'll look into better ways to do this.

      */5 * * * * /opt/scripts/enabledisableremote.sh
      
      #!/bin/bash
      
      export PATH="/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:$HOME/.npm-global/bin:$PATH"
      
      REMOTE="9fc232df-4d0c-4a15-93b5-c0585c1dd9c9"
      NAS="10.0.0.28"
      
      # Stato attuale del Remote
      CURRENT=$(/usr/local/bin/xo-cli remote.getAll --json | jq -r --arg id "$REMOTE" '.[] | select(.id == $id) | .enabled')
      
      # Stato desiderato in base alla raggiungibilità del NAS
      if ping -c 1 -W 2 "$NAS" > /dev/null 2>&1; then
          DESIRED=true
      else
          DESIRED=false
      fi
      
      # Cambia stato solo se necessario
      if [[ "$CURRENT" == "true" || "$CURRENT" == "false" ]]; then
          if [[ "$CURRENT" != "$DESIRED" ]]; then
              /usr/local/bin/xo-cli remote.set id="$REMOTE" enabled="$DESIRED"
          fi
      fi
      
      1 Reply Last reply
      Reply Quote 0
      • acebmxerA
        acebmxer @poddingue
        last edited by

        @poddingue @frb94

        Yes if I recall (I may not have stated on the forum) that I still ended up with issues and just abounded the idea. Not sure on the time line when they attempted a patch to when i stopped disabling the remote.

        F 1 Reply Last reply
        Reply Quote 1
        • F
          frb94 @acebmxer
          last edited by

          @acebmxer So what are you doing now? Given the manual, NFS is the way, but i can't have the remote available h24 and also i would like to have a functioning XO 😀

          acebmxerA poddingueP 2 Replies Last reply
          Reply Quote 1
          • acebmxerA
            acebmxer @frb94
            last edited by

            @frb94

            Just leaving it on 24/7 😞 winter is here now or so we thought (its 75f outside today) . If there is any update on this i would try again. but as it seems you are having the same issue i did then, it does not appear to be fixed.

            1 Reply Last reply
            Reply Quote 0
            • poddingueP poddingue marked this topic as a question
            • poddingueP
              poddingue Vates 🪐 @frb94
              last edited by

              If you have the time, an issue on https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/issues with your build date and that ps -T output would make the case better than I can.

              F 2 Replies Last reply
              Reply Quote 0
              • F
                frb94 @poddingue
                last edited by

                @poddingue Taking the time to do this it's the bare minium! Here you go: https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/issues/10741

                1 Reply Last reply
                Reply Quote 0
                • florentF
                  florent Vates 🪐 XO Team
                  last edited by

                  when a NFS munt in hard mount mode fails, it is quite tricky to handle on user land, and falling back to a soft mount means we accept to loose data without knowing

                  To unstuck a XO with a brken NFS , we added a cli tool that allow you to disable a remote here https://github.com/vatesfr/xen-orchestra/pull/10587

                  F 1 Reply Last reply
                  Reply Quote 0
                  • F
                    frb94 @florent
                    last edited by

                    @florent

                    I performed another test to reproduce the issue and evaluate the recovery mechanism introduced in PR #10587.

                    Unfortunately, I encountered a limitation that may prevent the new disable-remote command from being used in the exact failure scenario it is intended to address.

                    1. Reproducing the issue

                    With the NFS remote enabled, I shut down the NAS.

                    Initially, Xen Orchestra remained accessible, but one libuv worker became blocked in rpc_wait_bit_killable.

                    After some time, all four libuv workers were blocked:

                    TID  STAT  WCHAN                    COMMAND
                    863  Dsl   rpc_wait_bit_killable    libuv-worker
                    864  Dsl   rpc_wait_bit_killable    libuv-worker
                    865  Dsl   rpc_wait_bit_killable    libuv-worker
                    866  Dsl   rpc_wait_bit_killable    libuv-worker
                    

                    The xo-server process was still running, but the libuv worker pool was completely blocked.

                    I also observed multiple df -kP processes attempting to access the unavailable NFS mount.

                    2. Attempting to stop xo-server

                    I then executed:

                    systemctl stop xo-server
                    

                    However, systemd was unable to terminate the service, even after sending SIGKILL.

                    The final status was:

                    Active: failed (Result: timeout)
                    Main PID: 738
                    
                    Processes still around after SIGKILL. Ignoring.
                    State 'final-sigterm' timed out. Killing.
                    Killing process 738 (MainThread) with signal SIGKILL.
                    Processes still around after final SIGKILL. Entering failed mode.
                    Unit process 738 (MainThread) remains running after unit stopped.
                    

                    Checking the remaining process:

                    ps -p 738 -o pid,ppid,stat,wchan:32,comm
                    

                    Returned:

                    PID  PPID  STAT  WCHAN                    COMMAND
                    738     1  Ds    rpc_wait_bit_killable    MainThread
                    

                    All other Node.js threads had disappeared, but the main thread remained stuck in an uninterruptible kernel wait.

                    3. Attempting a lazy unmount

                    I then tried:

                    umount -l /run/xo-server/mounts/9fc232df-4d0c-4a15-93b5-c0585c1dd9c9
                    

                    The command completed successfully, and findmnt -t nfs,nfs4 no longer showed the NFS mount.

                    However, the Node.js process remained blocked:

                    PID  STAT  WCHAN                    COMMAND
                    738  Ds    rpc_wait_bit_killable    MainThread
                    

                    Therefore, detaching the NFS mount did not release the already pending kernel operation.

                    4. Implications for PR #10587

                    As I understand it, the new xo-server-db disable-remote <id> command is intended to be executed while xo-server is stopped.

                    However, this test shows that when an NFS hard remote becomes unavailable:

                    1. All four libuv workers can become blocked.
                    2. xo-server becomes unresponsive.
                    3. systemctl stop xo-server can fail, even after SIGKILL.
                    4. The Node.js process can remain stuck in an uninterruptible kernel wait.
                    5. Even umount -l does not necessarily release the blocked process.

                    5. Question about the intended recovery procedure

                    If xo-server cannot be fully stopped because its process remains stuck in state D, how is the new disable-remote command expected to be used safely?

                    Is the intended procedure to execute the database command while the old Node.js process is still present but systemd reports the service as failed?

                    Or is a VM reboot / restoration of NFS connectivity still required before the recovery command can be used?

                    I have not executed disable-remote in this condition yet, because the original Node.js process is still present and I wanted to avoid modifying the database while it might still be in use.

                    My concern is that the new CLI provides a way to prevent the problematic remote from being accessed on the next startup, but does not necessarily provide a complete recovery path when the existing xo-server process cannot terminate.

                    I would appreciate clarification on the intended recovery procedure for this specific scenario.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    Reply Quote 0
                    • F
                      frb94 @poddingue
                      last edited by

                      @poddingue @florent

                      I really do not want to look like i'm not appreciating the platform. I am a sysadmin currently evaluating XCP-ng and Xen Orchestra as a replacement for VMware, and I have to say this issue is making me a bit concerned. Of course for now it's my homelab, but it is already a show stopper for me.

                      I understand that NFS hard mounts can block when the server goes offline, but I really wouldn't expect an unavailable backup repository to make the entire XO Web UI unresponsive, especially when no backup jobs are running.

                      To me, this feels like vCenter becoming unusable just because one of the backup repositories is down. That's a pretty big deal in a production environment. Also, i have not yet tested what happens to vms running on local SR and management plane of a host when the main NFS SR may become unavailable.

                      What worries me even more is that, as my tests showed, once XO gets stuck, even SIGKILL can't terminate the process, so recovering isn't straightforward either.

                      Am I missing something here? Is there something wrong with my setup, or is this actually expected behavior?

                      I really like XCP-ng and XO so far, but I'm trying to understand how companies handle this kind of situation in production. Surely a failed backup destination shouldn't take down the whole management interface?

                      acebmxerA 1 Reply Last reply
                      Reply Quote 1
                      • acebmxerA
                        acebmxer @frb94
                        last edited by

                        @frb94

                        just to confirm you are disabling the Backup NFS SR? Before it goes off line? I can try this again in my setup just not sure if i still kept the script i created that the synology would used to send the disable the remote before shutdown.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        Reply Quote 0

                        Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                        Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                        With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                        Register Login
                        • First post
                          Last post