On October 14, 2016 10:13:17 AM GMT+03:00, Ulrich Windl <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: >>>> Nikhil Utane <nikhil.subscri...@gmail.com> schrieb am 13.10.2016 um >16:43 in >Nachricht ><cagnwmjubpucnbgxrohkhsbq0lxovwslfpkupg1r8gjqrfqm...@mail.gmail.com>: >> Ulrich, >> >> I have 4 resources only (not 5, nodes are 5). So then I only need 6 >> constraints, right? >> >> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] >> [1,] "A" "A" "A" "B" "B" "C" >> [2,] "B" "C" "D" "C" "D" "D" > >Sorry for my confusion. As Andrei Borzenkovsaid in ><caa91j0w+epahflg9u6vx_x8lgfkf9rp55g3nocy4ozna9bb...@mail.gmail.com> >you probably have to add (A, B) _and_ (B, A)! Thinking about it, I >wonder whether an easier solution would be using "utilization": If >every node has one token to give, and every resource needs on token, no >two resources will run on one node. Sounds like an easier solution to >me. > >Regards, >Ulrich > > >> >> I understand that if I configure constraint of R1 with R2 score as >> -infinity, then the same applies for R2 with R1 score as -infinity >(don't >> have to configure it explicitly). >> I am not having a problem of multiple resources getting schedule on >the >> same node. Rather, one working resource is unnecessarily getting >relocated. >> >> -Thanks >> Nikhil >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ulrich Windl < >> ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Don't you need 10 constraints, excluding every possible pair of your >5 >>> resources (named A-E here), like in this table (produced with R): >>> >>> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10] >>> [1,] "A" "A" "A" "A" "B" "B" "B" "C" "C" "D" >>> [2,] "B" "C" "D" "E" "C" "D" "E" "D" "E" "E" >>> >>> Ulrich >>> >>> >>> Nikhil Utane <nikhil.subscri...@gmail.com> schrieb am 13.10.2016 >um >>> 15:59 in >>> Nachricht >>> ><cagnwmjw0cwmr3bvr3l9xzcacjuzyczqbzezuzpajxi+pn7o...@mail.gmail.com>: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > I have 5 nodes and 4 resources configured. >>> > I have configured constraint such that no two resources can be >>> co-located. >>> > I brought down a node (which happened to be DC). I was expecting >the >>> > resource on the failed node would be migrated to the 5th waiting >node >>> (that >>> > is not running any resource). >>> > However what happened was the failed node resource was started on >another >>> > active node (after stopping it's existing resource) and that >node's >>> > resource was moved to the waiting node. >>> > >>> > What could I be doing wrong? >>> > >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-have-watchdog" value="true" >>> > name="have-watchdog"/> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-dc-version" >value="1.1.14-5a6cdd1" >>> > name="dc-version"/> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-cluster-infrastructure" >>> value="corosync" >>> > name="cluster-infrastructure"/> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-stonith-enabled" value="false" >>> > name="stonith-enabled"/> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-no-quorum-policy" value="ignore" >>> > name="no-quorum-policy"/> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-default-action-timeout" >value="240" >>> > name="default-action-timeout"/> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-symmetric-cluster" value="false" >>> > name="symmetric-cluster"/> >>> > >>> > # pcs constraint >>> > Location Constraints: >>> > Resource: cu_2 >>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Resource: cu_3 >>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Resource: cu_4 >>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Resource: cu_5 >>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0) >>> > Ordering Constraints: >>> > Colocation Constraints: >>> > cu_3 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY) >>> > cu_4 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY) >>> > cu_4 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY) >>> > cu_5 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY) >>> > cu_5 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY) >>> > cu_5 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY) >>> > >>> > -Thanks >>> > Nikhil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org >>> http://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 >>> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org >http://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
Hi, use of utilization (balanced strategy) has one caveat: resources are not moved just because of utilization of one node is less, when nodes have the same allocation score for the resource. So, after the simultaneus outage of two nodes in a 5-node cluster, it may appear that one node runs two resources and two recovered nodes run nothing. Original 'utilization' strategy only limits resource placement, it is not considered when choosing a node for a resource. Vladislav _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://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
