> On 15 Jan 2015, at 3:11 pm, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: > > 13.01.2015 11:32, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov >> <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: >>> Hi Andrew, David, all. >>> >>> I found a little bit strange operation ordering during transition execution. >>> >>> Could you please look at the following partial configuration (crmsh syntax)? >>> >>> === >>> ... >>> clone cl-broker broker \ >>> meta interleave=true target-role=Started >>> clone cl-broker-vips broker-vips \ >>> meta clone-node-max=2 globally-unique=true interleave=true >>> resource-stickiness=0 target-role=Started >>> clone cl-ctdb ctdb \ >>> meta interleave=true target-role=Started >>> colocation broker-vips-with-broker inf: cl-broker-vips cl-broker >>> colocation broker-with-ctdb inf: cl-broker cl-ctdb >>> order broker-after-ctdb inf: cl-ctdb cl-broker >>> order broker-vips-after-broker 0: cl-broker cl-broker-vips >>> ... >>> === >>> >>> After I put one node to standby and then back to online, I see the >>> following transition (relevant excerpt): >>> >>> === >>> * Pseudo action: cl-broker-vips_stop_0 >>> * Resource action: broker-vips:1 stop on c-pa-0 >>> * Pseudo action: cl-broker-vips_stopped_0 >>> * Pseudo action: cl-ctdb_start_0 >>> * Resource action: ctdb start on c-pa-1 >>> * Pseudo action: cl-ctdb_running_0 >>> * Pseudo action: cl-broker_start_0 >>> * Resource action: ctdb monitor=10000 on c-pa-1 >>> * Resource action: broker start on c-pa-1 >>> * Pseudo action: cl-broker_running_0 >>> * Pseudo action: cl-broker-vips_start_0 >>> * Resource action: broker monitor=10000 on c-pa-1 >>> * Resource action: broker-vips:1 start on c-pa-1 >>> * Pseudo action: cl-broker-vips_running_0 >>> * Resource action: broker-vips:1 monitor=30000 on c-pa-1 >>> === >>> >>> What could be a reason to stop unique clone instance so early for move? >>> >> >> Do not take it as definitive answer, but cl-broker-vips cannot run >> unless both other resources are started. So if you compute closure of >> all required transitions it looks rather logical. Having >> cl-broker-vips started while broker is still stopped would violate >> constraint. > > Problem is that broker-vips:1 is stopped on one (source) node unnecessarily > early.
It looks to be moving from c-pa-0 to c-pa-1 It might be unnecessarily early, but it is what you asked for... we have to unwind the resource stack before we can build it up. > ctdb resource takes very long time to start (almost minute?), so > broker-vips:1 is unavailable during all that time. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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