On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Eric Blau <ebl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 3. If a node goes offline and comes back, the CRM does not >> > redistribute resources to that server, despite setting >> resource_stickiness >> > to 0 on all of the resources. >> >> Where is "back"? And why would it be better? >> >> If each resource really does prefer specific hosts, you need to >> specify location constraints, eg: >> >> crm configure location ms_stateful_1-best ms_stateful_1 \ >> rule 10000: #uname eq best_node >> >> crm configure location ms_stateful_1-second_best ms_stateful_1 \ >> rule 6000: #uname eq second_best_node >> > > I was hoping that having colocation constraints with negative scores would > tell CRM to prefer to spread out resources among all servers in the cluster. > If a server dies and comes back, I would expect the colocation constraints > to force at least one of the resources to be started or and/or promoted on > the server that recovers.
They'll result in things moving, but not necessarily "back" to how they were before. _______________________________________________ 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
