Hi Yuusuke, On 10/20/11 20:43, Yuusuke Iida wrote: > Hi, Yan > > (2011/09/26 17:46), Gao,Yan wrote: >> A glance to the transition. After grpPostgreSQLDB3 was assigned to act1, >> grpPostgreSQLDB1 was chosen to be processed, and it was assigned to act2 >> (because it had no preference between act2 and act3). And then >> grpPostgreSQLDB2 went to act3. > Thank you for a reply. > The flow of the present placement understood it. > >> >> So the solution might be: After grpPostgreSQLDB3, process >> grpPostgreSQLDB2 first rather than grpPostgreSQLDB1. Though the >> problem is: >> Basing on what policy, we could choose grpPostgreSQLDB2 to process >> earlier than grpPostgreSQLDB1? Given the processing order was decided >> before assigning them all, i.e before assigning grpPostgreSQLDB3. > Though I thought in various ways, I did not hit on the good thought. > For example, I sort the order of resources that are not yet placed again > whenever I assign one resource. We cannot re-sort the order of the resources during iterating them to process.
Will such a correction be difficult? Actually, I doubt we can find a optimal solution which is able to perfectly balance between the preference of resource location and the placement strategy, basing on the current mode of assignment. Perhaps only some optimization algorithm can resolve such problem. Regards, Gaoyan -- 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
