> shouldn't be too hard Whenever you make something idiot proof, the universe invents a bigger idiot.
I'm that idiot I guess. > use colocation constraints for the things that need to run on the same node Except colocation resources also include order unless you specifically tell it that the items are not sequential (At least in my testing). Furthermore- you can't have a colocation resource of colocation resources. Nor can you have a group of colocation resources. You also can't have a group of groups. I'd love to be able to create a group called "filesystem" that includes all of the file system mounts I have- and then be able to create a group that includes the listener, the IP, and the filesystem group- except you can't have a group of groups. And if I try to create a group with the listener, the IP and the individual filesystems- then I can't create another group that also includes those filesystems because they're already in a group. I realize this "shouldn't be too hard" but I honestly can't come up with a way to replicate the VCS behavior with pacemaker. I can create something that roughly approximates it- but it isn't the same. It's possible pacemaker can't articulate these ideas- and if so- that's fine. I'll work around it. I think the more likely explanation is that I don't fully understand the limitations and use of colocations, orders and groups. If someone can point me at a thorough explanation of when you would choose a group over a colocation with an order and/or the specific limitations of each- I would be grateful. -Don _______________________________________________ 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
