On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Zrin Žiborski
zrin+pacema...@ziborski.net wrote:
Hi there,
I've experimented a bit with pacemaker and as far as I can tell (without
looking
into the source code enough to distinguish a feature from a potential
problem),
the effect of
colocation X-Y
Hi there,
I've experimented a bit with pacemaker and as far as I can tell (without
looking
into the source code enough to distinguish a feature from a potential
problem),
the effect of
colocation X-Y score: X Y
is (sometimes something) like
X gets score (added) for running together with
To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com
falanclus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof
Sent: Sat Nov 13 2010 04:20:56 GMT-0700 (Mountain Standard Time)
From: Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net
To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com
@oss.clusterlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com
falanclus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net
and...@beekhof.net wrote:
colocation X-Y -2: X Y
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote:
colocation X-Y -2: X Y
colocation Y-X -2: Y X
the second one is implied by the first and is therefore redundant
If only that were true!
It
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote:
colocation X-Y -2: X Y
colocation Y-X -2: Y X
the second one is
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net
I have tried larger values. If you know of a value that *should*
work, please share it.
INFINITY
My understanding is that a colocation score of minus infinity will
prevent the resources from running on the same node, which in my
configuration would result in a loss of availability. The goal
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof and...@beekhof.net wrote:
colocation X-Y -2: X Y
colocation Y-X -2: Y X
the second one is implied by the first and is therefore redundant
If only that were true!
What happens with the first rule is that other constraints that force
Y to a node
I've looked into the code more and added more logging, etc.
The pengine essentially walks the list of constraints, applying
weights, and then walks the list of resources and tallies the weights.
In my example, it ends up walking the resources backward, i.e. it
assigns a node to Y and then assigns
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Alan Jones falanclus...@gmail.com wrote:
How to I express symmetric anti-collocation in Pacemaker 1.0.9.1?
I'd like to write two rules:
colocation X-Y -2: X Y
colocation Y-X -2: Y X
the second one is implied by the first and is therefore redundant
The idea
12 matches
Mail list logo
