Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

24.10.2016 14:22, Nikhil Utane wrote: I had set resource utilization to 1. Even then it scheduled 2 resources. Doesn't it honor utilization resources if it doesn't find a free node? To make utilization work you need to set both: * node overall capacity (per-node utilization attribute) *

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

I had set resource utilization to 1. Even then it scheduled 2 resources. Doesn't it honor utilization resources if it doesn't find a free node? -Nikhil On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: > 24.10.2016 14:04, Nikhil Utane wrote: > >> That is what

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

That is what happened here :(. When 2 nodes went down, two resources got scheduled on single node. Isn't there any way to stop this from happening. Colocation constraint is not helping. -Regards Nikhil On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

21.10.2016 19:34, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 14.10.2016 10:39, Vladislav Bogdanov пишет: use of utilization (balanced strategy) has one caveat: resources are not moved just because of utilization of one node is less, when nodes have the same allocation score for the resource. So, after the

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

14.10.2016 10:39, Vladislav Bogdanov пишет: > > use of utilization (balanced strategy) has one caveat: resources are > not moved just because of utilization of one node is less, when nodes > have the same allocation score for the resource. So, after the > simultaneus outage of two nodes in a

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

On 10/17/2016 11:29 PM, Nikhil Utane wrote: > Thanks Ken. > I will give it a shot. > > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2011-August/011271.html > On this thread, if I interpret it correctly, his problem was solved when > he swapped the anti-location constraint > > From (mapping to

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

Thanks Ken. I will give it a shot. http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2011-August/011271.html On this thread, if I interpret it correctly, his problem was solved when he swapped the anti-location constraint >From (mapping to my example) cu_2 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY) cu_3 with cu_4

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

On 10/17/2016 09:55 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote: > I see these prints. > > pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights:cu_4: Rolling back scores from cu_3 > pengine:debug: native_assign_node:Assigning Redun_CU4_Wb30 to cu_4 > pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights:cu_3: Rolling back scores from cu_2

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

I see these prints. pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights: cu_4: Rolling back scores from cu_3 pengine:debug: native_assign_node: Assigning Redun_CU4_Wb30 to cu_4 pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights: cu_3: Rolling back scores from cu_2 pengine:debug: native_assign_node: Assigning

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

On 10/14/2016 06:56 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for the responses so far. > I added reverse colocation as well. However seeing some other issue in > resource movement that I am analyzing. > > Thinking further on this, why doesn't "/a not with b" does not imply "b > not with a"?/

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

I feel the behavior has become worse after adding reverse co-location constraint. I started with this. And it was all I wanted it to be. cu_5 <-> Redund_CU1_WB30 cu_4 <-> Redund_CU2_WB30 cu_3 <-> Redund_CU3_WB30 cu_2 <-> Redund_CU5_WB30 However for some reason pacemaker decided to move cu_2 from

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

Hi, Thank you for the responses so far. I added reverse colocation as well. However seeing some other issue in resource movement that I am analyzing. Thinking further on this, why doesn't "*a not with b" does not imply "b not with a"?* Coz wouldn't putting "b with a" violate "a not with b"? Can

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

On October 14, 2016 10:13:17 AM GMT+03:00, Ulrich Windl wrote: Nikhil Utane schrieb am 13.10.2016 um >16:43 in >Nachricht >: >> Ulrich, >> >> I have 4