Hi All, My test seemed to include a mistake. It seems to be replaced by two limitation.
> However, I think that symmetircal="false" is applied to all order limitation > in this. > (snip) > <rsc_order id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg1" score="0" symmetrical="false"> > <resource_set id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg1-0"> > <resource_ref id="clnPing"/> > </resource_set> > <resource_set id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg1-1".....> > <resource_ref id="A"/> > ....... > <resource_ref id="F"/> > </resource_set> > </rsc_order> > (snip) <rsc_order id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg1" score="0" first="clnPing" then="prmEx" symmetrical="false"> </rsc_order> <rsc_order id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg2" score="0" symmetrical="true"> <resource_set id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg2-0" require-all="false"> <resource_ref id="prmEx"/> <resource_ref id="prmFs1"/> <resource_ref id="prmFs2"/> <resource_ref id="prmFs3"/> <resource_ref id="prmIp"/> <resource_ref id="prmPg"/> </resource_set> </rsc_order> If my understanding includes a mistake, please point it out. Best Reagards, Hideo Yamauchi. --- On Fri, 2014/1/17, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp <renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp> wrote: > Hi All, > > We confirm a function of resource_set. > > There were the resource of the group and the resource of the clone. > > (snip) > Stack: corosync > Current DC: srv01 (3232238180) - partition WITHOUT quorum > Version: 1.1.10-f2d0cbc > 1 Nodes configured > 7 Resources configured > > > Online: [ srv01 ] > > Resource Group: grpPg > A (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01 > B (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01 > C (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01 > D (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01 > E (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01 > F (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01 > Clone Set: clnPing [prmPing] > Started: [ srv01 ] > > Node Attributes: > * Node srv01: > + default_ping_set : 100 > > Migration summary: > * Node srv01: > > (snip) > > These have limitation showing next. > > (snip) > <rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation-grpPg-clnPing" score="INFINITY" > rsc="grpPg" with-rsc="clnPing"> > </rsc_colocation> > <rsc_order id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg" score="0" first="clnPing" > then="grpPg" symmetrical="false"> > </rsc_order> > (snip) > > > We tried that we rearranged a group in resource_set. > I think that I can rearrange the limitation of "colocation" as follows. > > (snip) > <rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation-grpPg-clnPing" score="INFINITY"> > <resource_set id="rsc_colocation-grpPg-clnPing-0"> > <resource_ref id="clnPing"/> > <resource_ref id="A"/> > ....... > <resource_ref id="F"/> > </resource_set> > </rsc_colocation> > (snip) > > How should I rearrange the limitation of "order" in resource_set? > > I thought that it was necessary to list two of the next, but a method to > express well was not found. > > * "symmetirical=true" is necessary between the resources that were a group(A > to F). > * "symmetirical=false" is necessary between the resource that was a group(A > to F) and the clone resources. > > I wrote it as follows. > However, I think that symmetircal="false" is applied to all order limitation > in this. > (snip) > <rsc_order id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg1" score="0" symmetrical="false"> > <resource_set id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg1-0"> > <resource_ref id="clnPing"/> > </resource_set> > <resource_set id="rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg1-1".....> > <resource_ref id="A"/> > ....... > <resource_ref id="F"/> > </resource_set> > </rsc_order> > (snip) > > Best Reards, > Hideo Yamauchi. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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