>>> Dan Frincu <df.clus...@gmail.com> schrieb am 03.08.2011 um 13:28 in Nachricht <CADQRkwiFCEUnq-i9Dtv6AbjQz4Z_e792=3is81zv1eqdrnj...@mail.gmail.com>: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:22 PM, <alain.mou...@bull.net> wrote: > > Hi & Thanks > > > > I don't think the 1000 or 5000 value makes any difference, > > The values make little difference, it's about having a higher score atm.
Hi! Isn't the stickyness effectively based on the failcount? We have one resource that has a location constraint for one node with a weight of 500000 and a sticky ness of 100000. The resource runs on a different node and shows no tendency of moving back (not even after restarts). Somehow the implementation of stickyness is not what one might expect. I'd expect stickyness to be related to RUNNING resources. I see little sense in keeping a resource on a node after restarting. Why? Usually you want stickyness to prevent unexpected downtimes or negative side effects caused by migration (e.g. all users loosing their connections). But as a restart will have these side-effects anyway, I see little sense with the current implementation. Regards, Ulrich > > > so the rsc_options could make it work ? > > Yes, I believe so. > > > But do you have also the order with a clone ? > > No. > > > Because on other of my configurations, I have also > > property $id="cib-bootstrap-options" \ > > default-resource-stickiness="5000" > > and the resource does not failback automatically ... so ... > > Could somebody explain ? > > Try the following: > crm_verify -LVVVV 2>&1 | grep stick > > And see what scores (weights) are given to resources. Based on these > weights it might make more sense. > > HTH, > Dan > > > Thanks > > Alain > > > > > > > > De : Dan Frincu <df.clus...@gmail.com> > > A : General Linux-HA mailing list <linux-ha@lists.linux-ha.org> > > Date : 03/08/2011 13:00 > > Objet : Re: [Linux-HA] location and orders : Question about a behavior ... > > Envoyé par : linux-ha-boun...@lists.linux-ha.org > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM, <alain.mou...@bull.net> wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I have this simple configuration of locations and orders between > > resources > >> group-1 , group-2 and clone-1 > >> (on a two nodes ha cluster with Pacemaker-1.1.2-7 /corosync-1.2.3-21) : > >> > >> location loc1-group-1 group-1 +100: node2 > >> location loc1-group-2 group-2 +100: node3 > >> > >> order order-group-1 inf: group-1 clone-1 > >> order order-group-2 inf: group-2 clone-1 > >> > >> property $id="cib-bootstrap-options" \ > >> dc-version="1.1.2-f059ec7ced7a86f18e5490b67ebf4a0b963bccfe" \ > >> cluster-infrastructure="openais" \ > >> expected-quorum-votes="2" \ > >> stonith-enabled="true" \ > >> no-quorum-policy="ignore" \ > >> default-resource-stickiness="5000" \ > > > > I use it as: > > rsc_defaults $id="rsc-options" \ > > resource-stickiness="1000" > > Instead of: > > property $id="cib-bootstrap-options" \ > > default-resource-stickiness="5000" > > And the behavior is the expected one, no failback. > > > > HTH, > > Dan > > > >> > >> (and no current cli- preferences) > >> > >> When I stop the node2, the group-1 is well migrated on node3 > >> But when node2 is up again, and that I start Pacemaker again on node2, > >> the group-1 automatically comes back on node2 , and I wonder why ? > >> > >> I have other similar configuration with same location constraints and > > same > >> default-resource-stickiness value, but without order with a clone > >> resource, > >> and the group does not come back automatically. But I don't understand > > why > >> this order constraint would change this behavior ... > >> > >> Thanks for your help > >> Alain Moullé > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Dan Frincu > > CCNA, RHCE > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Dan Frincu > CCNA, RHCE > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
