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