Hi, I always have : default-resource-stickiness="5000" Thanks Alain
Le 25/04/2013 10:52, fabian.herschel a écrit : > Hi Alain, > > could you doublecheck, if the effect in your second test also happens, when > you set a stickness/default-stickyness tobe something like 1000? > > In your case when NOT setting default stickyness a running resource does not > get a higher score than a stopped one, which is requested to be started. > > So hopefully (not tested, but my guess) in your second test case setting > default stickiness will score up the running ressources and than also > prevent resource3 to start, when conflicting resources resource1 and > resource2 are already running and so all available hosts are "claimed". > > Fabian > > > > > Von Samsung-Tablet gesendetMoullé Alain <alain.mou...@bull.net> hat > geschrieben:Hi, > > a behavior which is not clear for me : > > 1/ Let's say we have 2 nodes node1 & node2 in the HA cluster, and 3 > Dummy resources : resname1, resname2, resname3 > and the forbidden colocation set like this : > > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname2 -inf: resname1 resname2 > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname3 -inf: resname3 resname1 > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname1 -inf: resname2 resname1 > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname3 -inf: resname3 resname2 > > In this case, if resname1 is started on node1 and resname2 is started on > node2, > if we ask to start resname3, it does not start, and that 's seems > correct for me > because of both -inf: resname3 resname1 and -inf: resname3 resname2 > > Now, if the forbidden colocation are set like this : > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname2 -inf: resname1 resname2 > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname3 -inf: resname1 resname3 > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname1 -inf: resname2 resname1 > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname3 -inf: resname2 resname3 > In this case, if resname1 is started on node1 and resname2 is started on > node2, > if we ask to start resname3, it does at first stop resname1, then > migrate resname2 on node1, and finally start resname3 on node2 > > 2/ Another try with two Dummy resources resname1, resname2 and the > forbidden colocation set like this : > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname2 -inf: resname1 resname2 > > If we ask to migrate resname2 to node1 , resname2 is stopped, resname1 > is migrated to node2, and finally resname2 is started on node1. > > Now, the same test but with the forbidden colocation set like this : > colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname1 -inf: resname2 resname1 > > If we ask to migrate resname2 to node1 , nothing happens, resname1 > remains on node1 and resname2 on node2 > > > So, this seems to mean that the order of the resources for a -inf: > collocation is important and has an impact on the behavior. > > I wonder if it is a normal behavior ? and so we have to really take in > account the order on -inf colocation constraints ? > > or if there is a bug around this? > > Thanks > Alain > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
