On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:31 AM, RaSca <ra...@miamammausalinux.org> wrote: > Il giorno Ven 13 Mag 2011 16:09:14 CET, Viacheslav Biriukov ha scritto: >> In your case you have two drbd master. So, I think, it is not a good >> idea to create that collocation. Instead of this you can set location >> directives to locate vm-test_virtualdomain where you want to be default. >> For example: >> location L_vm-test_virtualdomain_01 vm-test_virtualdomain 100: master1.node >> location L_vm-test_virtualdomain_02 vm-test_virtualdomain 10: master2.node > > And I agree to your point of view (since I test that the colocation is > not working). But the point is: why? I mean, the colocation defines that > the drbd device must run in a node where drbd is Master. Why Pacemaker > puts drbd in slave on the node in which the migration start? Does a > colocation like this: > > colocation vm-test_virtualdomain_ON_vm-test_ms-r0 inf: > vm-test_virtualdomain vm-test_ms-r0:Master > > Implicit that once the resource go away it becomes slave?
Pretty sure this is a bug in 1.0. Have you tried 1.1.5 ? _______________________________________________ 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
