Gotta revive this old thread... On Friday 23 September 2011 22:28:30 Florian Haas wrote: > On 2011-09-23 22:24, Arnold Krille wrote: > > On Friday 23 September 2011 21:23:55 Florian Haas wrote: > >> On 2011-09-23 19:06, Arnold Krille wrote: > >>> On Friday 23 September 2011 17:54:26 Florian Haas wrote: > >>> As far as I understand both the docs and my practical experience, the > >>> order of elements in the colocation is irrelevant. > >> Not trying to challenge your experience or your understanding of the > >> documentation, but the idea that colocation constraints are > >> non-directional is simply a wrong assumption. > >> http://www.clusterlabs.org/mwiki/images/6/61/Colocation_Explained.pdf > >> Slide 2. > > Challenge accepted:) I will check my experience next week, the cluster > > concerned isn't yet in productional use. > Swap them around and stop or fail resources. Then it becomes evident > fairly quickly.
I did create two Email-agents and one delay (with 60seconds start- and stop- delay) in stopped state. I added one rule "colocation bla inf: Email1 Delay Email2", committed this, then I deleted the target-roles of these services to have them started upon commit. Guess what: The emails where sent immediately while the delay took its time. So I will go on spreading my interpretation of docs and experience: The order on a colocation doesn't matter. Have fun, Arnold
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ drbd-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
