On 9/27/23 16:58, Ken Gaillot wrote:
On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 16:24 +0200, Adam Cecile wrote:
On 9/27/23 16:02, Ken Gaillot wrote:
On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 15:42 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 3:21 PM Adam Cecile <acec...@le-vert.net>
wrote:
Hello,
I'm struggling to understand if it's possible to create some
kind
of constraint to avoid two different resources to be running on
the
same host.
Basically, I'd like to have floating IP "1" and floating IP "2"
always being assigned to DIFFERENT nodes.
Is that something possible ?
Sure, negative colocation constraint.
Can you give me a hint ?
Using crmsh:
colcoation IP1-no-with-IP2 -inf: IP1 IP2
Thanks in advance, Adam.
To elaborate, use -INFINITY if you want the IPs to *never* run on
the
same node, even if there are no other nodes available (meaning one
of
them has to stop). If you *prefer* that they run on different
nodes,
but want to allow them to run on the same node in a degraded
cluster,
use a finite negative score.
That's exactly what I tried to do:
crm configure primitive Freeradius systemd:freeradius.service op
start interval=0 timeout=120 op stop interval=0 timeout=120 op
monitor interval=60 timeout=100
crm configure clone Clone-Freeradius Freeradius
crm configure primitive Shared-IPv4-Cisco-ISE-1 IPaddr2 params
ip=10.1.1.1 nic=eth0 cidr_netmask=24 meta migration-threshold=2 op
monitor interval=60 timeout=30 resource-stickiness=50
crm configure primitive Shared-IPv4-Cisco-ISE-2 IPaddr2 params
ip=10.1.1.2 nic=eth0 cidr_netmask=24 meta migration-threshold=2 op
monitor interval=60 timeout=30 resource-stickiness=50
crm configure location Shared-IPv4-Cisco-ISE-1-Prefer-BRT Shared-
IPv4-Cisco-ISE-1 50: infra-brt
crm configure location Shared-IPv4-Cisco-ISE-2-Prefer-BTZ Shared-
IPv4-Cisco-ISE-2 50: infra-btz
crm configure colocation Shared-IPv4-Cisco-ISE-Different-Nodes -100:
Shared-IPv4-Cisco-ISE-1 Shared-IPv4-Cisco-ISE-2
My hope is that IP1 stays in infra-brt and IP2 goes on infra-btz. I
want to allow them to keep running on different host so I also added
stickiness. However, I really do not want them to both run on same
node so I added a colocation with negative higher score.
Does it looks good to you ?
Yep, that should work.
The way you have it, if there's some sort of problem and both IPs end
up on the same node, the IP that doesn't prefer that node will move
back to its preferred node once the problem is resolved. That sounds
like what you want, but if you'd rather it not move, you could raise
stickiness above 100.
Hello,
Yes that's actually what I want. Clients are supposed to use both
addresses so it really does not make any sens to have both IPs assigned
to the same host.
Thanks a lot for your help
_______________________________________________
Manage your subscription:
https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
