On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Zrin Žiborski
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 : X Y
> is (sometimes s
gt;>
>> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> colocation X-Y -2: 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 : X Y
is (sometimes something) like
"X gets (added) for running together with Y", while Y
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Patrick H. wrote:
> Sent: Sat Nov 13 2010 04:20:56 GMT-0700 (Mountain Standard Time)
> From: Andrew Beekhof
> To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
>
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 a
Sent: Sat Nov 13 2010 04:20:56 GMT-0700 (Mountain Standard Time)
From: Andrew Beekhof
To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote
>> 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
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Alan Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> colocation X-Y -2: X Y
> colocation Y-X -2: Y X
the s
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof 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
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof 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 is. I know exactly how my code
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 a
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof 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 will evict X
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Alan Jones 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 is that external co
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 idea is that external conditions could place either resource and
I'd like Pacemaker to place the other accordingly.
Unfortunately, Pacemaker will only app
13 matches
Mail list logo
