>>> "Vallevand, Mark K" <mark.vallev...@unisys.com> schrieb am 27.10.2015 um >>> 22:24 in Nachricht <37343dddcd2d454baaea374e80d73...@us-exch13-5.na.uis.unisys.com>: > How do the resource placement strategy and utilization AND resource location > preference relate? > > I mean, is it one or the other? Or both somehow?
I think it's all AND (if you use -inf): So if one fails, the resource fails. > > If I set a resource location preference, how will that affect placement > strategy like balanced? Vice versa. > > Here's the problem I'm looking at. > I have a large number of resources that have very different utilization > values. Say 1-10. All my nodes have the same utilization values. I want > the > placement to be balanced. That works nicely. Consider what happens when a That's default AFAIK. > node fails and then rejoins the cluster. The balanced placement moves the > resources when the node fails and again when it rejoins. It's not good to Depending on stickiness of resources. > have resources move. Setting a resource-stickiness helps when the node > fails. You got it! > Rebalancing seems to be sane. But, when the node rejoins, the resources > stick where they are and the rejoining node carries no load. If I don't do You'll have to decide what you want: Should resources move, or shouldn't they? > any resource placement strategy at all and consider each resource to be > equal, I can set resource location preferences so that resources move when > the node fails and return to it when it rejoins. You could also write a script that checks the status and issues manual migration commands to the cluster to do what you want. > I want it all. :-) > I want the resources to be placed with balanced regard to utilization. Utilization does not balance,, but limit IMHO. > I want only the resources on a failed node to be reallocated to remaining > nodes (with balanced utilization as much as possible). Then use high stickiness. > I want those resources to return to the node when it rejoins. (Or a subset > of them if that balances better.) Then you'll have to use a low stickiness. > > I could ignore placement strategy and script up resource location > preferences that mimic a balanced load. But, I'd rather let clustering do > it. Honestly: Why do you care if one node has little work, while others can handle the load? Modern hardware can save significant energy when being idle. > > Any ideas would be very welcome. No more ideas ;-) > > Regards. > Mark K Vallevand mark.vallev...@unisys.com<mailto:mark.vallev...@unisys.com> > Never try and teach a pig to sing: it's a waste of time, and it annoys the > pig. > THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY > MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its > attachments from all computers. _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org 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
