On 2006-06-26T15:10:05, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has nothing to do with your question, but it is related. The
> colocation constraint with INFINITY can bite. If you have three
> resources, R, A, and B, and both A and B should run together with
> R (R<--INF-->AB), but A and B don't depend on each other, then
> stopping either A or B stops R too. So, it sort of does more than
> needed. According to Andrew Beekhof this won't change before he
> can do some big changes and that certainly won't be in 2.0.6.
Yes, colocation is bi-directional. This is a bit of a surprise, but I
didn't think it would be impossible to fix. Actually, I thought it _was_
fixed. Andrew?
(I'm perfectly willing to be reminded about an e-mail thread which I
forgot. If so, maybe we should track this in an open bugzilla or
somewhere in the wiki so I can more readily look it up ;-)
> The way I solved this kind of setup is by specifying same scores
> for all interdependent resources on a per node basis and with
> always different scores for different nodes. That way you can
> ensure to have all resources running on one node. After adding
> order constraints you should be OK.
Uhm, yes, that would also work, of course, it's quite inconvenient.
Too bad that not several objects can refer to the same rule object.
That'd be cool. So cool that I think I need to file a bugzilla for that
;-) #1348.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
