There is an ordering constraint - everything must be started after the king resource. But even if this constraint didn't exist I don't see that it should logically make any difference due to all the non-clone resources being colocated with the master of the king resource. Surely it would make no sense for Pacemaker to start or move colocated resources until a master king resource has been elected?
<tags> <tag id="servant2_dependents"> <obj_ref id="servant4"/> <obj_ref id="servant5"/> <obj_ref id="servant6"/> <obj_ref id="servant7"/> <obj_ref id="servant8"/> <obj_ref id="servant9_active_disabled"/> <obj_ref id="servant11"/> <obj_ref id="servant12"/> <obj_ref id="servant13"/> </tag> </tags> <constraints> <rsc_colocation id="colocation_with_king_resource_master" score="INFINITY"> <resource_set id="king_resource_master_dependents" sequential="false"> <resource_ref id="stk_shared_ip"/> <resource_ref id="servant4"/> <resource_ref id="servant5"/> <resource_ref id="servant6"/> <resource_ref id="servant7"/> <resource_ref id="servant8"/> <resource_ref id="servant9_active_disabled"/> <resource_ref id="servant10"/> <resource_ref id="servant11"/> <resource_ref id="servant12"/> <resource_ref id="servant13"/> </resource_set> <resource_set id="king_resource_master" sequential="true" role="Master"> <resource_ref id="ms_king_resource"/> <resource_ref id="ms_servant2"/> <resource_ref id="ms_servant3"/> </resource_set> </rsc_colocation> <rsc_order id="dependents_after_servant2" kind="Mandatory" first="ms_servant2" then="servant2_dependents"/> </constraints> Regards, Harvey ________________________________________ From: Users <users-boun...@clusterlabs.org> on behalf of Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2019 4:13 p.m. To: users@clusterlabs.org Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ClusterLabs] Problems with master/slave failovers 29.06.2019 6:01, Harvey Shepherd пишет: > > As you can see, it eventually gives up in the transition attempt and starts a > new one. Eventually the failed king resource master has had time to come back > online and it then just promotes it again and forgets about trying to > failover. I'm not sure if the cluster transition actions listed by > crm_simulate are in the order in which Pacemaker tries to carry out the > operations, but if so the order is wrong. It should be stopping all servant > resources on the failed king master, then failing over the king resource, > then migrating the servant resources to the new master node. Instead it seems > to be trying to migrate all the servant resources over first, with the king > master failover scheduled near the bottom, which won't work due to the > colocation constraint with the king master. Unless you configured explicit ordering between resources, pacemaker is free to chose any order. _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/ _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/