On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 2:16 am, Greg Woods <wo...@ucar.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 12:37 +0000, Tony Stocker wrote:
colocation inf_ftpd inf: infra_group ftpd
or do I need to use an 'order' statement instead, i.e.:
order ftp_infra mandatory: infra_group:start ftpd
I'm far from a leading expert on this, but in my experience, colocation
and order are completely separate concepts. If you want both, you have
to state both. So I would say you need both colocation and order
statements to get what you want.
Exactly
So are is **this** what my configuration should like given that
information?:
primitive ip ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 params ip="1.2.3.4"
primitive job ocf:pps:jobfile params role="test" job="first"
primitive pwd ocf:pps:pwdfile params role="test"
primitive ftpd ocf:pps:proftpd
primitive httpd ocf:heartbeat:apache
primitive smtpd ocf:heartbeat:postfix
primitive bes ocf:pps:besServer
group infra_group ip job pwd
colocation inf_ftpd inf: ftpd infra_group
colocation inf_http inf: httpd infra_group
colocation inf_mail inf: smtpd infra_group
colocation inf_odap inf: bes infra_group
order ftpd_infra mandatory: infra_group:start ftpd
order http_infra mandatory: infra_group:start httpd
order smtp_infra mandatory: infra_group:start smtpd
order odap_infra mandatory: infra_group:start bes
Is my syntax above correct for the situation where I need all elements of
'infra_group' started first, and then the various other primitives
started? In other words am I correctly stating my colocation
requirements? Or do I need to reverse the order, like so?:
colocation inf_ftpd inf: infra_group ftpd
Will the order statements ensure that the infra_group is completed startup
before starting ftpd? In other words, since part of the infra_group is to
set the password file, and since the ftpd daemon depends on the existence
of UID's in said password file, the ftpd primitive is not going to start
until the infra_group has fully completed startup, correct?
Am I allowed to separately list the pairs of colocation and order
statements as I've done above? Or will that cause issues?
By separately stating the pairs, as opposed to creating a single line,
have I avoided creating ad hoc resource sets that I didn't explicitly
define?
Thanks,
Tony
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
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
