On Dec 7, 2007 10:41 AM, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:03 AM, China wrote: > > > Ok, but I don't understand why with > > > > pingd: 500 > > PC_A: 100 > > resource_stickiness: 100 (3 resources make 300) > > > > the resource failback. The expressions that you give me returns the > > same > > results like with: > > > > pingd: 1000 > > PC_A: 100 > > resource_stickiness: 100 (3 resources make 300) > > > > but the behavior is different (with pingd 1000 doesn't failback) > > > re-read the second condition: > > >> if you want it to move back, you also need (3*stickiness) < PC_A > > > 300 is not less than 100 >
I've read it. But this condition doesn't change in the two tests. What i change is pingd score, and in one test it failback and in the other it doesn't. So I think the expression that you give me isn't the explanation? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > On Dec 6, 2007 8:40 PM, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:15 PM, China wrote: > >> > >>> Thank you. > >>> I've found the right score with the script: > >>> > >>> pingd: +1000 > >>> PC_A: +100 > >>> resource_stickiness: +100 (I've 3 resources so make 300, not 100) > >>> > >>> Now the problem is that i didn't understood why these score is ok > >>> for > >>> failover and don't failback. > >> > >> because 300 (3*stickiness) > 100 (PC_A) > >> > >> if you want it to move based on connectivity you need pingd > (PC_A + > >> 3*stickiness) > >> if you want it to move back, you also need (3*stickiness) < PC_A > >> > >> try: > >> > >> pingd = 200 > >> PC_A = 100 > >> stickiness = 30 > >> > >>> And why with pingd score 500 is good for failback to PC_A. > >>> > >>> You should make a tutorial to calculate these scores. > >>> > >>> On Dec 6, 2007 3:42 PM, Dominik Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> China wrote: > >>>>> Last question: how can I see what is the node's score during > >>>>> cluster > >>>>> execution? > >>>> > >>>> You can grep it out of the "ptest" output. > >>>> > >>>> Or use my script: > >>>> > >>>> > >> > http://lists.community.tummy.com/pipermail/linux-ha/2007-September/027488.html > >>>> > >>>> which has been updated by Robert Lindgren: > >>>> > >>>> > >> > http://lists.community.tummy.com/pipermail/linux-ha/2007-September/027745.html > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> Dominik > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Linux-HA mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > >>>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Davide Belloni > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Davide Belloni > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Davide Belloni _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
