>>> Maloja01 <maloj...@arcor.de> schrieb am 04.08.2011 um 12:58 in Nachricht <4e3a7b5c.1030...@arcor.de>: > On 08/04/2011 08:28 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: > > 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). > > No stickiness has nothing to do with the failcount. The policy engine > could take both into account the stickiness (for RUNNING resources) and > the failcount for (RUNNING or non-running ressources). > > If you ever had a on-start-failure of a resource on a node the failcount > is set to infinity which means, the resource could not be started at > this node.
fabian, I know that, and the errors were removed by "crm_resource -C". Still the resource is happy where it is, and doesn't want to move away. > > If the policy engine needs to evaluate where to run a resource it uses > the location/antcolocation/cololaction constraints, failcounts, > stickiness and maybe some other scores to evaluate WHERE to run a resource. > > So in my opinion the stiness does exactly what you are asking for. Unfortunately someone did a manual migrate yesterday, so I cannot show the scores that lead to the problem. Regards, Ulrich _______________________________________________ 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
