On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:30:45PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:57:47AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Andreas Kurz <andreas.k...@linbit.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Tuesday 15 June 2010 08:40:58 Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Vadym Chepkov <vchep...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Vadym Chepkov wrote: >> >> >> >> I filed bug 2435, glad to hear "it's not me" >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Andrew closed this bug >> >> >> > (http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2435) as >> >> >> > resolved, but I respectfully disagree. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I will try to explain a problem again in this list. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > lets assume you want to have several resources running on the same >> >> >> > node. >> >> >> > They are independent, so if one is going down, others shouldn't be >> >> >> > stopped. You would do this by using a resource set, like this: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > primitive dummy1 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy >> >> >> > primitive dummy2 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy >> >> >> > primitive dummy3 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy >> >> >> > colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > and I expect them to run on the same host, but they are not and I >> >> >> > attached hb_report to the case to prove it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Andrew closed it with the comment "Thats because you have >> >> >> > sequential="false" for the colocation set." But sequential="false" >> >> >> > means >> >> >> > doesn't matter what order do they start. >> >> >> >> >> >> No. Thats not what it means. >> >> >> And I believe I should know. >> >> >> >> >> >> It means that the members of the set are NOT collocated with each >> >> >> other, only with any preceding set. >> >> > >> >> > Just for clarification: >> >> > >> >> > colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4 >> >> > >> >> > .... is a shortcut for: >> >> > >> >> > colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy1 >> >> > colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy2 >> >> > colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy3 >> >> > >> >> > ... is that correct? >> >> >> >> Only if sequential != false. >> > >> > You wanted to say "sequential == false"? >> >> no. >> >> != >> ne >> not equal to > > Hmm, just checked in the Conf explained, on p.47 of the copy I > have here it says the other way. Or I don't understand the matter > either. > >> >> For some reason the shell appears to be setting that by default. >> > >> > This is sequential == false: >> > >> > colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4 >> > >> > This is sequential == true: >> > >> > colocation together inf: dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 dummy4 >> >> How do you say that 1-3 are in one sequential set and 4 is in a different >> set? > > No way. Make two sets perhaps?
Right. How does one do that? To me, ( a b c ) would have been the obvious syntax for defining a set. Not for setting sequential=false. _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
