On 23 Apr 2014, at 1:46 am, Igal Baevsky <ibaev...@marketfactory.com> wrote:
> Andrew Beekhof <andrew@...> writes: > >> Correct. >> Given colocate(A, B, -inf), in order to find out where A can go, we need > to know where B is (going to go). >> Even if we made it so that was no longer the case (which at a stretch > might even be possible after all these >> years), there is still an implicit ordering from their order in the > configuration. >> >> Unfortunately the human brain is still significantly more intelligent than > Pacemaker. >> What seems obvious to us is not at all obvious to it. >> >> Can all three groups run on all nodes? Or just its own and the shared > backup? > > > Ideally, I would want all three groups to be able to run on all nodes based > on pre-assigned priorities(nodes might have different hardware specs). > What I want to prevent though, is a situation where one group is being shut > down or moved to make space for another group. So sumarizing your setup as group-{1,2,3}; node-{1,2,3,4} where node-4 is the hot spare; and that group-N prefers node-N... In what scenario would group-1 legitimately end up on node-2 or node-3? > This is exactly what's > happening now when all nodes are taken. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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