Re: [ClusterLabs] Q: ordering clones with interleave=false
On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 13:30 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > Hi! > > Reading the docs I have a question: WHen I run a clone with > interleave=false in a three-node cluster, and the clne cannot be > started on one node, will ordering for such a clone be possible? Does > it make a difference, whether the resource cannot run on an online > node, or is unable due to a standby or offline node? > > Regards, > Ulrich Interleave=false only applies to instances that will be started in the current transition, so offline nodes don't prevent dependent resources from starting on online nodes. -- Ken Gaillot ___ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
Re: [ClusterLabs] Q: Resource Groups vs Resources for stickiness and colocation?
On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 18:40 +0100, Ian Underhill wrote: > im guessing this is just a "feature", but something that will > probably stop me using groups > > Scenario1 (working): > 1) Two nodes (1,2) within a cluster (default-stickiness = INFINITY) > 2) Two resources (A,B) in a cluster running on different nodes > 3) colocation constraint between resources of A->B score=-1 > > a) pcs standby node2, the resource B moves to node 1 > b) pcs unstandby node2, the resource B stays on node 1 - this is good > and expected > > Secanrio 2 (working): > 1) exactly the same as above but the resource exist within their own > group (G1,G2) > 2) the colocation constraint is between the groups > > Secanrio 3 (not working): > 1) Same as above however each group has two resources in them > > Resource Group: A_grp > A(ocf::test:fallover): Started mac-devl03 > A_2 (ocf::test:fallover): Started mac-devl03 > Resource Group: B_grp > B(ocf::test:fallover): Started mac-devl11 > B_2 (ocf::test:fallover): Started mac-devl11 > > a) pcs standby node2, the group moves to node 1 > b) pcs unstandby node2, the group moves to node 2, but I have > INFINITY stickiness (maybe I need INFINITY+1 ;) ) > > crm_simulate -sL doesnt really explain why there is a difference. > > any ideas? (environment pacemaker-cluster-libs-1.1.16-12.el7.x86_64) > > /Ian This sounds like a bug. Feel free to submit a report at bugs.clusterlabs.org and attach the policy engine input file with the unexpected behavior. FYI a group's stickiness is the sum of the stickiness of each active member, though no score can be bigger than INFINITY. -- Ken Gaillot ___ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
[ClusterLabs] Q: Resource Groups vs Resources for stickiness and colocation?
im guessing this is just a "feature", but something that will probably stop me using groups Scenario1 (working): 1) Two nodes (1,2) within a cluster (default-stickiness = INFINITY) 2) Two resources (A,B) in a cluster running on different nodes 3) colocation constraint between resources of A->B score=-1 a) pcs standby node2, the resource B moves to node 1 b) pcs unstandby node2, the resource B stays on node 1 - this is good and expected Secanrio 2 (working): 1) exactly the same as above but the resource exist within their own group (G1,G2) 2) the colocation constraint is between the groups Secanrio 3 (not working): 1) Same as above however each group has two resources in them Resource Group: A_grp A (ocf::test:fallover): Started mac-devl03 A_2 (ocf::test:fallover): Started mac-devl03 Resource Group: B_grp B (ocf::test:fallover): Started mac-devl11 B_2 (ocf::test:fallover): Started mac-devl11 a) pcs standby node2, the group moves to node 1 b) pcs unstandby node2, the group moves to node 2, but I have INFINITY stickiness (maybe I need INFINITY+1 ;) ) crm_simulate -sL doesnt really explain why there is a difference. any ideas? (environment pacemaker-cluster-libs-1.1.16-12.el7.x86_64) /Ian ___ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
[ClusterLabs] Q: ordering clones with interleave=false
Hi! Reading the docs I have a question: WHen I run a clone with interleave=false in a three-node cluster, and the clne cannot be started on one node, will ordering for such a clone be possible? Does it make a difference, whether the resource cannot run on an online node, or is unable due to a standby or offline node? Regards, Ulrich ___ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org