On Tue, 2023-12-12 at 18:08 +0300, Artem wrote: > Hi Andrei. pingd==0 won't satisfy both statements. It would if I used > GTE, but I used GT. > pingd lt 1 --> [0] > pingd gt 0 --> [1,2,3,...]
It's the "or defined pingd" part of the rule that will match pingd==0. A value of 0 is defined. I'm guessing you meant to use "pingd gt 0 *AND* pingd defined", but then the defined part would become redundant since any value greater than 0 is inherently defined. So, for that rule, you only need "pingd gt 0". > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 17:21, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 4:47 PM Artem <tyom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > pcs constraint location FAKE3 rule score=0 pingd lt 1 or > > not_defined pingd > > >> > pcs constraint location FAKE3 rule score=125 pingd gt 0 or > > defined pingd > > > Are they really contradicting? > > > > Yes. pingd == 0 will satisfy both rules. My use of "always" was > > incorrect, it does not happen for all possible values of pingd, but > > it > > does happen for some. > > May be defined/not_defined should be put in front of lt/gt ? It is > possible that VM goes down, pingd to not_defined, then the rule > evaluates "lt 1" first, catches an error and doesn't evaluate next > part (after OR)? No, the order of and/or clauses doesn't matter. -- Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
