Send the CIB from when you had your resource_stickiness = 100.

Yan

>>> On Wed, May 9, 2007 at 10:08 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kai Bjørnstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Thanks for the input on the debug cmds. Did not know about those. 
> Unfortunately I am not any smarter after browsing the output :-)
> 
>> Don't forget: In a large dependency "group", when one resource wants to
>> move, many others are trying to stay, depending on your
>> default-resource-stickiness and default-resource-failure-stickiness.
> The only thing I see when looking at the debug output is comparisons of 
> INFINITY vs. - INFINITY ??
> 
> So my first "CIB design" was to put everything in one group. The problems 
> with 
> this configuration is that the default start/restart order in a group is 
> just 
> a linear list. 
> This means that when my group looks like this:
> 
> Group mygroup:
> IP_1
> IP_2
> FS_1
> FS_2
> LSB_1
> LSB_2
> LSB_3
> 
> a failure of LSB_1 will make both LSB_2 and LSB_3 stop, but in reality they 
> are not dependent at all. The same problem i get if FS_1 fails, the LSB_x 
> should stop, but FS_2 should still be up!
> 
> As a consequence of this I wrote a new config disabling the group start 
> order 
> but keeping the group co-location. and then explicitly setting the rules 
> that 
> any/all LSB-script should start/restart after any/all Filesystem 
> 
> I set 
> default-resource-stickiness = "0"
> default-resource-failure-stickiness = "0"
> 
> This is when the magic begins:
> When i now start up my passive system (dl360g3-2) I suddenly get resources 
> distributed all over the place! But the group still has co-location on !?? 
> And everything was up an ok on the primary !?
> 
> Resource Group: HAsms
>     ip_172.19.5.200     (heartbeat::ocf:IPaddr):        
> Started dl360g3-2
>     ip_11.0.0.200       (heartbeat::ocf:IPaddr):        
> Started dl360g3-1
>     mount_opt_scali_var_scacim-db       (heartbeat::ocf:Filesystem):    
> Started dl360g3-2
>     mount_opt_scali_var_scasmo-db       (heartbeat::ocf:Filesystem):    
> Started dl360g3-1
>     mount_opt_scali_repository  (heartbeat::ocf:Filesystem):    
> Started dl360g3-2
>     mount_tftpboot      (heartbeat::ocf:Filesystem):    
> Started dl360g3-1
>     mount_opt_scali_images      (heartbeat::ocf:Filesystem):    
> Started dl360g3-2
>     mount_var_consoles  (heartbeat::ocf:Filesystem):   
>  Started dl360g3-1
>     lsb_scacim-pgsql    (lsb:scacim-pgsql):     
> Started dl360g3-2
>     lsb_dhcpd   (lsb:dhcpd):    
> Started dl360g3-1
>     lsb_scasmo-controller       (lsb:scasmo-controller):        
> Started dl360g3-2
>     lsb_conserver       (lsb:conserver):        
> Started dl360g3-1
>     lsb_scasmo-factory  (lsb:scasmo-factory):  
>  Started dl360g3-2
>     lsb_scaproxyd       (lsb:scaproxyd):        
> Started dl360g3-1
>     lsb_scamond-mapper  (lsb:scamond-mapper):   
> Started dl360g3-2
>     lsb_scasmo-server   (lsb:scasmo-server):    
> Started dl360g3-1
> 
> 
> Then I set 
> default-resource-stickiness = "100"
> default-resource-failure-stickiness = "0"
> 
> Now the resources stay on dl360g3-1 when i start up dl360g3-2, but when I 
> make 
> the a LSB resource fail on dl360g3-1, Heartbeat suddenly moves the resource 
> to dl360g3-2, disregarding the group co-location rules ?????
> 
> cheers Kai 
> 
> On Tuesday 08 May 2007 12:48:26 Yan Fitterer wrote:
>> Comments in-line
>>
>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2007 at 10:13 AM, in message
>> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 
>> Don't forget: In a large dependency "group", when one resource wants to
>> move, many others are trying to stay, depending on your
>> default-resource-stickiness and default-resource-failure-stickiness.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kai R. Bjrnstad
> Senior Software Engineer
> dir. +47 22 62 89 43
> mob. +47 99 57 79 11
> tel. +47 22 62 89 50
> fax. +47 22 62 89 51
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Olaf Helsets vei 6
> N0621 Oslo, Norway
> 
> Scali - www.scali.com
> Scaling the Linux Datacenter
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems

_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems

Reply via email to