Re: [Pacemaker] About the difference in handling of "sequential".
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:57:29 +1100 Andrew Beekhof wrote: > It appears Yan did this on purpose. > The reason would likely be that this set is for use in a location > constraint (not ordering or colocation). And in particular, it is > creating a fake set for resources using the same template - so there > is no reason to think they should be ordered. > > So: > 1. sequential should _always_ default to true > 2. please report it to me if you find somewhere that does not > 3. since template_to_set() is creating (copying) a fake set, there is > no conflict with 1. Thanks, that's exactly the information I needed. :) -- // Kristoffer Grönlund // kgronl...@suse.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: [Pacemaker] About the difference in handling of "sequential".
On 19 Feb 2014, at 10:48 am, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:54:29 +0900 (JST)
> renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> I found your correction.
>>
>> https://github.com/beekhof/pacemaker/commit/37ff51a0edba208e6240e812936717fffc941a41
>>
>> Many Thanks!
>> Hideo Yamauchi.
>>
>> --- On Wed, 2014/2/12, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> There is difference in two between handling of "sequential" of
>>> "resouce_set" of colocation.
>>>
>
> I suspect that sequential for resource sets is still broken. I have
> been trying to figure out what the expected value of sequential is if
> not explicitly set on a resource_set. It seems like the answer is "it
> depends".
>
> In pengine/constraints.c, unpack_order_set, sequential defaults to true
> if not set, via the following logic:
>
>/* line 1368 */
>const char *sequential_s = crm_element_value(set, "sequential");
>/* line 1384 */
>if (sequential_s == NULL) {
>sequential_s = "1";
>}
>sequential = crm_is_true(sequential_s);
>
> However, in pengine/constraints.c(450), template_to_set, sequential
> defaults to false:
>
>/* line 495 */
>/* Set sequential="false" for the resource_set */
>crm_xml_add(*rsc_set, "sequential", XML_BOOLEAN_FALSE);
>
> Am I reading this wrong, or is this on purpose?
It appears Yan did this on purpose.
The reason would likely be that this set is for use in a location constraint
(not ordering or colocation).
And in particular, it is creating a fake set for resources using the same
template - so there is no reason to think they should be ordered.
So:
1. sequential should _always_ default to true
2. please report it to me if you find somewhere that does not
3. since template_to_set() is creating (copying) a fake set, there is no
conflict with 1.
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
Re: [Pacemaker] About the difference in handling of "sequential".
Hi everyone,
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:54:29 +0900 (JST)
renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I found your correction.
>
> https://github.com/beekhof/pacemaker/commit/37ff51a0edba208e6240e812936717fffc941a41
>
> Many Thanks!
> Hideo Yamauchi.
>
> --- On Wed, 2014/2/12, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > There is difference in two between handling of "sequential" of
> > "resouce_set" of colocation.
> >
I suspect that sequential for resource sets is still broken. I have
been trying to figure out what the expected value of sequential is if
not explicitly set on a resource_set. It seems like the answer is "it
depends".
In pengine/constraints.c, unpack_order_set, sequential defaults to true
if not set, via the following logic:
/* line 1368 */
const char *sequential_s = crm_element_value(set, "sequential");
/* line 1384 */
if (sequential_s == NULL) {
sequential_s = "1";
}
sequential = crm_is_true(sequential_s);
However, in pengine/constraints.c(450), template_to_set, sequential
defaults to false:
/* line 495 */
/* Set sequential="false" for the resource_set */
crm_xml_add(*rsc_set, "sequential", XML_BOOLEAN_FALSE);
Am I reading this wrong, or is this on purpose?
--
// Kristoffer Grönlund
// kgronl...@suse.com
___
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
Re: [Pacemaker] About the difference in handling of "sequential".
Hi Andrew,
I found your correction.
https://github.com/beekhof/pacemaker/commit/37ff51a0edba208e6240e812936717fffc941a41
Many Thanks!
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Wed, 2014/2/12, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> There is difference in two between handling of "sequential" of "resouce_set"
> of colocation.
>
> Is either one not a mistake?
>
>
> static gboolean
> unpack_colocation_set(xmlNode * set, int score, pe_working_set_t * data_set)
> {
> xmlNode *xml_rsc = NULL;
> resource_t *with = NULL;
> resource_t *resource = NULL;
> const char *set_id = ID(set);
> const char *role = crm_element_value(set, "role");
> const char *sequential = crm_element_value(set, "sequential");
> int local_score = score;
>
> const char *score_s = crm_element_value(set, XML_RULE_ATTR_SCORE);
>
> if (score_s) {
> local_score = char2score(score_s);
> }
>
> /* When "sequential" is not set, "sequential" is treat as TRUE. */
>
> if (sequential != NULL && crm_is_true(sequential) == FALSE) {
> return TRUE;
> (snip)
> static gboolean
> colocate_rsc_sets(const char *id, xmlNode * set1, xmlNode * set2, int score,
> pe_working_set_t * data_set)
> {
> xmlNode *xml_rsc = NULL;
> resource_t *rsc_1 = NULL;
> resource_t *rsc_2 = NULL;
>
> const char *role_1 = crm_element_value(set1, "role");
> const char *role_2 = crm_element_value(set2, "role");
>
> const char *sequential_1 = crm_element_value(set1, "sequential");
> const char *sequential_2 = crm_element_value(set2, "sequential");
>
> /* When "sequential" is not set, "sequential" is treat as FALSE. */
>
> if (crm_is_true(sequential_1)) {
> /* get the first one */
> for (xml_rsc = __xml_first_child(set1); xml_rsc != NULL; xml_rsc =
> __xml_next(xml_rsc)) {
> if (crm_str_eq((const char *)xml_rsc->name, XML_TAG_RESOURCE_REF,
> TRUE)) {
> EXPAND_CONSTRAINT_IDREF(id, rsc_1, ID(xml_rsc));
> break;
> }
> }
> }
>
> if (crm_is_true(sequential_2)) {
> /* get the last one */
> (snip)
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> 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
