On 2007-10-29T21:16:17, Keisuke MORI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the HA database cluster, the database service is typically provided > by the group like: > Filesystem + MySQL + IP > > If any of the resources failed then the database service is no > longer available. Running only Filesystem does not mean anything to > "the service availability."
But the CRM doesn't know that, nor should it. It tries to bring online as many of the configured resources as possible. > We usually group up resources because they need to run together to > provide "the service" (database, web server, or whatever) as a whole, > therefore running a part of the group does not make sense. Yes and no. Remember that groups are internally expanded into regular dependencies. The cluster will try to bring online as much of the hierarchy / dependency tree as possible; the goal being 100%, all the time. Consider the IP/FS/DB/Web example. The DB might be used by other services as well; why shouldn't it be brought online? Also, you might have explicitly set the target_role of the last resource in the group to "stopped", to not bring the resources beyond that point online - this would then be stopped completely as well. > > Let me instead ask what you believe you gain by stopping the first > > resource. > Because it is just simple and intuitive for users. But they don't gain anything by stopping the resources which might as well be running. Instead, they'd gain a special case where the group behaved differently from regular dependencies, and I'm quite certain that would not be a good idea. > And I believe that the most of commercial HA software would also > behave like this (at least in the typical usage). IRIS FailSafe wouldn't, and I doubt that IBM's Tivoli System Automation would; SteelEye LifeKeeper I'm reasonably sure about too. > Our costomers are considering to migrate from a commercial HA > software to heartbeat, and all of them expect to behave like > this so far. > > At least it would be nice if it's able to be customized, I would think. You could get this behaviour back if you switched from groups to constraints - and used rsc_colocation with symmetrical="true", I think. Or make a patch to have a "symmetrical" attribute on the group to propagate it down. Regards, Lars -- Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/