On 26 Apr 2014, at 2:20 am, Igal Baevsky <ibaev...@marketfactory.com> wrote:
> Andrew Beekhof <andrew@...> writes:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> group-1 should only be able to end up on node-2 or node-3 if no other group
> is running
> on them and node-4 is unavailable (down or taken by group-2/3).
So:
node-2 fails, group-2 moves to node-4
node-2 returns
node-1 fails, group-1 moves to node-2
and no admin intervention in between.
The more common use of N+1 is where the +1 is a shared failover.
So resources are only moving between their primary node and the +1.
I probably could make your use-case work, but its unlikely to happen for 1.1.12
I've filed it as a feature request for future reference:
http://bugs.clusterlabs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5209
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
