Is this related to your email about symmetrical not being defaulted
consistently between colocate_rsc_sets() and unpack_colocation_set()?
On 22 Jan 2014, at 3:05 pm, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi All,
My test seemed to include a mistake.
It seems to be replaced by two limitation.
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for comments.
Is this related to your email about symmetrical not being defaulted
consistently between colocate_rsc_sets() and unpack_colocation_set()?
Yes.
I think that a default is not handled well.
I will not have any problem when sequential attribute is set in cib by
On 17 Feb 2014, at 12:47 pm, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for comments.
Is this related to your email about symmetrical not being defaulted
consistently between colocate_rsc_sets() and unpack_colocation_set()?
Yes.
I think that a default is not handled
Hi Andrew,
Is this related to your email about symmetrical not being defaulted
consistently between colocate_rsc_sets() and unpack_colocation_set()?
Yes.
I think that a default is not handled well.
I will not have any problem when sequential attribute is set in cib by
all means.
Hi All,
My test seemed to include a mistake.
It seems to be replaced by two limitation.
However, I think that symmetircal=false is applied to all order limitation
in this.
(snip)
rsc_order id=rsc_order-clnPing-grpPg1 score=0 symmetrical=false
resource_set
Hi All,
We confirm a function of resource_set.
There were the resource of the group and the resource of the clone.
(snip)
Stack: corosync
Current DC: srv01 (3232238180) - partition WITHOUT quorum
Version: 1.1.10-f2d0cbc
1 Nodes configured
7 Resources configured
Online: [ srv01 ]
Resource