On 08/24/11 17:38, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> 23.08.2011 12:19, Gao,Yan wrote:
> [snip]
>> When allocating every resource, we compare the capacity of the nodes.
>> The node has more remaining capacity is preferred. This would be quite
>> clear if we only define one kind of "capacity". While if we
23.08.2011 12:19, Gao,Yan wrote:
[snip]
> When allocating every resource, we compare the capacity of the nodes.
> The node has more remaining capacity is preferred. This would be quite
> clear if we only define one kind of "capacity". While if we define
> multiple kinds of "capacity", for example:
On 08/22/11 22:09, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> Hi Yan,
>
> 27.04.2011 08:14, Yan Gao wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Do priorities work for "utilization" strategy?
>> Yes, the improvement works for "utilization", "minimal" and "balanced"
>> strategy:
>>
>> - The nodes that are more healthy and have more capac
Hi Yan,
27.04.2011 08:14, Yan Gao wrote:
[snip]
>> Do priorities work for "utilization" strategy?
> Yes, the improvement works for "utilization", "minimal" and "balanced"
> strategy:
>
> - The nodes that are more healthy and have more capacities get consumed
> first (globally preferred nodes).
D
Hi, Andrew
I confirmed that a problem was revised.
Many thanks!!
Yuusuke
(2011/07/19 10:42), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
This should also now be fixed in:
http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/devel/rev/960a7e3da680
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
Hi, Andrew
I know that the
This should also now be fixed in:
http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/devel/rev/960a7e3da680
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
> Hi, Andrew
>
> I know that there is the next processing in "pengine".
>
> # cat -n pengine/utils.c
> [snip]
> 322 /* now try to balance reso
On 07/05/11 12:34, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
>> On 06/01/11 18:51, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
>>> Hi, Yan
>>>
>>> An answer becomes slow, and really I'm sorry.
>>>
>>> (2011/05/13 15:06), Gao,Yan wrote:
I understand that you think the improvement for the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Gao,Yan wrote:
> On 06/01/11 18:51, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
>> Hi, Yan
>>
>> An answer becomes slow, and really I'm sorry.
>>
>> (2011/05/13 15:06), Gao,Yan wrote:
>>> I understand that you think the improvement for the non-default
>>> placement strategy makes sense to
On 06/01/11 18:51, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
> Hi, Yan
>
> An answer becomes slow, and really I'm sorry.
>
> (2011/05/13 15:06), Gao,Yan wrote:
>> I understand that you think the improvement for the non-default
>> placement strategy makes sense to the "default" too. Though the
>> "default" is somewhat
Hi, Yan
An answer becomes slow, and really I'm sorry.
(2011/05/13 15:06), Gao,Yan wrote:
I understand that you think the improvement for the non-default
placement strategy makes sense to the "default" too. Though the
"default" is somewhat intended not to be affected by any "placement
strategy"
Hi Yuusuke,
On 05/12/11 19:56, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
> Hi Yan,
>
> I tested the correction.
>
> The problem that I reported was improved by the correction that you
> performed.
Great, thanks for doing that!
>
> When I tested it, I found a different problem.
>
> When I set "placement-strategy=de
Hi Yan,
I tested the correction.
The problem that I reported was improved by the correction that you performed.
When I tested it, I found a different problem.
When I set "placement-strategy=default", it is a problem that a function to
disperse does not commit placement by the number of the st
Hi, Yan
Thank you for good work!
I test it.
Please wait for a while.
Regards,
Yuusuke
(2011/04/27 13:32), Yan Gao wrote:
Hi Yuusuke,
On 04/19/11 19:55, Yan Gao wrote:
Actually I've been optimizing the placement-strategy lately. It will
sort the resource processing order according to the prior
Hi Vladislav,
On 04/27/11 12:49, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> Hi Yan,
>
> 27.04.2011 07:32, Yan Gao wrote:
>> Hi Yuusuke,
>>
>> On 04/19/11 19:55, Yan Gao wrote:
>>> Actually I've been optimizing the placement-strategy lately. It will
>>> sort the resource processing order according to the priorit
Hi Yan,
27.04.2011 07:32, Yan Gao wrote:
> Hi Yuusuke,
>
> On 04/19/11 19:55, Yan Gao wrote:
>> Actually I've been optimizing the placement-strategy lately. It will
>> sort the resource processing order according to the priorities and
>> scores of resources. That should result in ideal placement.
Hi Yuusuke,
On 04/19/11 19:55, Yan Gao wrote:
> Actually I've been optimizing the placement-strategy lately. It will
> sort the resource processing order according to the priorities and
> scores of resources. That should result in ideal placement. Stay tuned.
The improvement of the placement strat
On 04/18/11 18:17, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
> * When it is not dispersed well
> When I produced trouble in a resource in order of next, I am partial, and the
> resource is placed in one node.
>
> main_rsc3 -> main_rsc2 -> main_rsc1
>
> Online: [srv-b1 srv-b2 srv-a1]
> Full list of resources:
> main_
Yan is our utilization expert, lets see if he can provide some
direction here :-)
-- Andrew
2011/4/18 Yuusuke IIDA :
> Hi, Andrew
>
> I want to disperse using a resource placement strategy function of
> Pacemaker-1.1
> in the fail-over point of the resource in N to N environment.
>
> After testi
18 matches
Mail list logo
