On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Vadym Chepkov <vchep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:57 AM, 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. >> For some reason the shell appears to be setting that by default. >> >>> >>> To pick up Vadym's Question: >>> >>> * what would be the correct syntax to say >>> "run-together-but-dont-care-if-one- >>> dies-or-is-not-runable"? >> >> Choose a score < inf, just like regular colocation constraints. > > Ah, ok, thanks, I guess in my mind anything less then inf was "advisory".
They are. Advisory is the only way to deal with the "but-dont-care-if-one-dies-or-is-not-runable" part. > As long as I keep it above any resource-stickiness it should be in fact > mandatory, right? > Or something else needs to be taken to consideration? > > On a side note, I was trying to figure out how to make a set from two > resources, so I just added a proper xml and checked what crm shell say about > it. And it shows it like this: > > colocation together 5000: _rsc_set_ dummy1 dummy2 Strange. Dejan? > > Who knew? I didn't see it anywhere in documentation. > > Anyway, just so I get it right, what would be the opposite constraint (which > is what this thread started from) > If I want to have same dummy1, dummy2, dummy3 resources, but I don't want any > of them ever to run simultaneously on the same host. What wold be the proper > anti-colocation constraint for this configuration? Score = -inf, plus the patch, plus sequential = true (or unset). Not sure how that looks in shell syntax though. _______________________________________________ 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
