On 07/15/11 10:55, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Gao,Yan <y...@novell.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Sorry for the delay. I've been thinking about it...
>>
>> On 07/14/11 12:21, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> This loop looks wrong
>>>
>>> + for(gIter2 = resource1->rsc_cons; gIter2 != NULL; gIter2 =
>>> gIter2->next) {
>>>
>>> You're very dependant on the number and order of constraints because
>>> of the way resource1_weight is being updated.
>>> AFAICS, this only works if there is a single non INFINITY constraint.
>> Indeed. We can hardly tell what exactly the resources' scores are before
>> allocating resources. The scores would be merged/updated during
>> allocating. That means that we can hardly tell what the best allocating
>> order is before allocating resources. What "sort_rsc_process_order()"
>> does is just to predict a relatively ideal order.
>>
>>>
>>> I'll take a look at the before and after results tomorrow and see if
>>> there might be a better way to achieve the same results.
>> That would be great. Thanks!
>>
>
> Is there a bug I can reference in the commit message?
http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2613
http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2619
Regards,
Yan
--
Gao,Yan <y...@suse.com>
Software Engineer
China Server Team, SUSE.
_______________________________________________
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
