Achim Stumpf wrote:
This will give you a pingd score of 500. A ping_group is treated as
one ping_host score wise.
If you want to take each ping hosts connectivity into play, you should
have
ping 10.14.0.10
ping 10.14.0.11
ping 10.14.0.12
ping 10.14.0.13
instead. This would give a pingd score of 2000 (and make your setup
work score-wise).
I know that ping_group is treated as one ping_host score wise. I expect
the score to be 500 for that.
<instance_attributes
id="group_1_instance_attrs">
<attributes>
<nvpair
id="group_1_target_role" name="target_role" value="started"/>
<nvpair
id="group_1_resource_stickiness" name="resource_stickiness"
value="200"/>
</attributes>
</instance_attributes>
Apart from the fact that these attributes should be "meta_attributes"
instead of "instance_attributes", this will give you a score of 4 *
200 = 800 for the node the group is actually running on.
So with ping working, you should have scores of
800 + 500 for node1
500 for node2
Now you block icmp on node1. You will have:
800 on node1
500 on node2
So why should the cluster move any resource?
Ah, ok. so its better to change this to:
<meta_attributes id="group_1_instance_attrs">
<attributes>
<nvpair id="group_1_target_role" name="target_role"
value="started"/>
<nvpair id="group_1_resource_stickiness"
name="resource_stickiness" value="200"/>
</attributes>
</meta_attributes>
And the score of 200 counts for every primitive in the group. Ok, so
it's 800. I thought it counts only one time.
Again, read http://wiki.linux-ha.org/ScoreCalculation
Apart from my misunderstanding here with 4*200 score, does my setup work
score-wise now? Or do I miss anything?
I don't know the config you use "now", but if you address the score
issue I pointed out, I guess it should. The cib looked ok.
Regards
Dominik
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
