>>> Maloja01 <maloj...@arcor.de> schrieb am 04.08.2011 um 18:49 in Nachricht <4e3acd86.1020...@arcor.de>: > Hi Ulrich, > > I did not folow the complete thread, just jumped in - sorry. Is the > resource inside a resource group? In this case the stickiness is > multiplied. And sofor the stickiness could be greater than the location > role (score).
Hi! Yes, a group with about 20 resources has a resource-stickiness="100000" and a "location loc_grp_cbw grp_cbw 500000: node". As the group is somewhat indivisible, assigning varying stickinesses to individual resources just makes things unreadable and complicated. I feel that a group stickyness should override individual resource stickynesses, and not be used a a default stickyness for every resource in the group. Regards, Ulrich > > Regards > Fabian > > On 08/04/2011 03:10 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
