Hi again Yan comments within
On Friday 11 May 2007 00:57:36 Yan Fitterer wrote: > Kay, > > Sorry I couldn't answer this earlier... > > When I run the pe input file on my system here (2.0.7-1.2), the ptest > utility moves all resources to the second node, as expected. None are left > on the first, AFAICS. See output attached. So either your version of HB > comes to a different conclusion -> a bug, or something else is going on... > Did 2.0.7 have the turn off ordering on groups features? I thought that came in 2.0.8. Anyway we have compiled it ourselves, but it is a straight build/package from the standard 2.0.8 linux-ha tar-ball. > To me, the issue where you have a group where "collocation=true" and > resources don't move together looks like a bug. If you can reproduce this, > I think you should open a bugzilla for it, and see where it goes. > I'll see if a can reproduce it on a rpm built by suse or fedora. I plan to see if we can build a 2.0.9 or something to see if it's fixed. I'll open a bugzilla on it of not.... > Something else: I'm not sure how well things will work with a group where > "ordered=false", but with ordering constraints attached to the resources > within. I'm not sure this will work, as it could be valid for the pengine > to give precedence to the group's "ordered=false" setting, and ignore > completely the manual ordering constraints. > I see your point. I am actually wondering if the semantics around groups are a bit strange? Intuitively you would think that a resource group is just like any other resource. But as soon as you turn of colocation and ordering you suddenly encounter a problem. If n of m resources within a group fail, what is then the state of the group (started or failed)? > Maybe somebody with better understanding can answer this one? > > Where is the 2.0.8 version you have coming from? What platform? I'm > starting to wonder if the 2.0.8 you're using is "sane"... > tar ball downloaded from linux-ha, just made our own rpm-spec file > To avoid the issue above where you create a group without ordering, but > need some ordering nevertheless, maybe you should try a config getting rid > of the group, and doing the co-location manually. Bit of a pain to write, > but IMHO worth a try. I'll see if I have time to write basically the same configuration with explicit rules (no groups) and see what happens. Unfortunately I have already blown all estimates on my tasks have others I need to follow up and a deadline approaching.... you know the drill :-) But I am still wondering, what rule is causing a full resource shutdown when using a normal resource group (ordering=true, colocation=true) if any resource (including the one listed at the end) fail after a failover? If the reason is the colocation rule, I will never get my best-effort config to work. I'll do some more tests and pop a new mail...soon... cheers Kai > > Yan > > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:09 AM, in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kai Bjørnstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hum, maybe you wanted the pe-input file instead > > (at time of lsb_conserver failure) > > > > Kai > > -- > > 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 -- Kai R. Bj�rnstad 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
