Hi ooops, I made a mistake this morning, should be that : group G1 B & C
[ order advisory D to I (if you need to launch only one at a time, otherwise it is not needed) ] order mandatory for each D to I and group G1 : G1 than D, G1 than E, etc. colocations between each D to I and group G1 Alain > Hi > If I well understand, I would have tried : > group G1 mandatory B & C > > group G2 advisory D to I > > order mandatory group G1 than G2 > > this should work if I understand well your needs. > > Regards > Alain >> In the simplest terms, we currently have resources: >> >> A = drbd >> B = filesystem >> C = cluster IP >> D thru J = mysql instances. >> >> Resource group G1 consists of resources B through J, in that order, and is >> dependent on resource A. >> >> This fails over fine, but it has the serious disadvantage that if you stop >> or remove a mysql resource in the middle of the list, all of the ones after >> it stop too. For example, if you stop G, then H thru J stop as well. >> >> We want to change it so that the resource group G1 consists only of >> resources B & C. All of the mysql instances (D thru J) are individually >> dependent on group G1, but not dependent on each other. That way you can >> stop or remove a mysql resource without affecting the others. >> >> I saw this scenario described in the Pacemaker docs, but I cannot find an >> example of the syntax. >> >> -- >> Eric Robinson >> >> >> Disclaimer - March 24, 2013 >> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended >> solely for 'General Linux-HA mailing list'. If you are not the named >> addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this email. >> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author >> and might not represent those of Physicians' Managed Care or Physician >> Select Management. Warning: Although Physicians' Managed Care or Physician >> Select Management has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are >> present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss >> or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments. >> This disclaimer was added by Policy Patrol: http://www.policypatrol.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
