Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-02-19T15:49:28, Sebastian Reitenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Make rsc 'from' run on the same machine as rsc 'to' > > > > > > If rsc 'to' cannot run anywhere and 'score' is INFINITY, > > > then rsc 'from' wont be allowed to run anywhere either > > > If rsc 'from' cannot run anywhere, then 'to' wont be affected > > > > > > --> > > > > > > (You can force this to be bidirectional if you set symmetrical to true for > > > the > > > colocation constraint; I don't think you can set that for groups.) > > > > I am aware of that, thanks. But I wanted to use groups, to not need such a > > lot of constraints. > > Yeah, I agree. You'd need N:N-1 constraints to get what you want, which > probably wouldn't make you happy ;-) > > You could all colocate them with another resource (if there is one they > need to share; perhaps the fs?) This would reduce the number to N > constraints. > > Or, you could use a non-colocated, non-ordered group, and then define a > rsc_location rule to make them all run on the same node if available. I haven't tested this yet, because I only have a one node cluster here right now ;), However, when I try to create a location constraint via the GUI I can only select the group as a whole, but not the group members. When I select the group, will then the group members automatically kept on the same node, whatever happens? This would be just only one constraint. If so, then I don't really understand what the colocated parameter is good for, when I set it to false in that case, it would not make sense, and setting it to "yes", would be redundant. Then the collocated parameter to a group only makes sense when set to yes, but I have no preferences, where the group should run.
> > Or, a colocation constraint from that group to the resource you want to > collocate with. I'm not sure this works. Would reduce the number to 1 > constraint. yeah, would be more or less the same as a location for the whole group, as above. > > Groups were meant as a short-hand for the most common case, and now > people find out other uses for them; we need to find ways how to make > the groups more powerful, or the constraints (to reduce the need for > more powerful groups). but what about the other thing I mentioned, is this then a bug? with the three resources in the collocated, unordered group. I've seen the seond and third resource stopping, when I shutdown the second, but the first still left running. On your explanation in the other mail, I'd expect the first being shutdown too, which just not happens. kind regards Sebastian > > > Regards, > Lars > > -- > Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) > "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde > > _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
