Hi, On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 06:53:51PM +0100, Abraham Iglesias wrote: > Hi Deja, > > I updated to 2.1.3-3 and created a new configuration with an unordered > group. Resources within a group are restarted when one of them fails! :( > The group resources are collocated but unordered.
The resources are not restarted in case score for rsc_order between the two is set to 0. I expected that that would be the case with unordered groups, but it seems like it's not so. I guess that you should file a bug for this (please use hb_report to collect all information). > I guess this does not work for me... > > any advice? You could achieve this by creating a chain of colocation constraints (1->2->3...->8): - resources must run on the same node (colocate INFINITY) Thus you would simulate an unordered group. If that doesn't work, then perhaps you would also need a chain of order constraints to set the score to "0": - rsc_order score is 0 (<rsc_order from=1 to=2 score="0">) Perhaps this solution is too complex, but I can't think of any better. Thanks, Dejan > -Abraham > > Dejan Muhamedagic escribi?: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 04:24:19PM +0100, Abraham Iglesias wrote: >> >>> I think there wouldn't be any problem in upgrading heartbeat. Would it be >>> my 2.0.8 configuration compatible? >>> >> >> It should with the exception, perhaps, of the crm_config where >> in all options underscores are replaced by dashes. But that >> change could have happened earlier. It is still strongly >> recommended to first test the existing configuration with the new >> version on a test cluster. >> >> >>> With an unordered group, only 1 resource within the group would be >>> restarted? >>> >> >> I think so. Since there's no order I don't see any reason for >> other resources to be affected. BTW, not that there will be a >> herd of tomcats starting at the same time. And they are not >> particularly light weight. >> >> >>> The problem is that i need to have mounted a drbd partition before tomcat >>> starts. so... In some way, i need an order... but i might think about >>> removing this requirement provided the unordered group helps me in my >>> problem. >>> >> >> That shouldn't be a problem. What you would need is a group >> within a group, but nested groups are not supported. Anyway, you >> can create an order constraint between the group of tomcats and >> the drbd resource. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dejan >> >> >>> Thank you very much. >>> >>> -Abraham >>> >>> >>> Dejan Muhamedagic escribi?: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:40:15PM +0100, Abraham Iglesias wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> I have configurede a 2 nodes v2 HA cluster with hearbeat 2.0.8. So far, >>>>> I included all resources in the same group. It is an easy way to offer >>>>> colocation and ordering features. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that I have 8 tomcat instances within the same group, so >>>>> in a loaded environment it takes 3 minutes to start all tomcat >>>>> resources in the group. >>>>> >>>> What could help is an unordered group of resources. But to do >>>> that you'd have to upgrade, which you should do due to other >>>> reasons as well. Can you run 2.1.3? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Dejan >>>> >>>> >>>>> I implemented a status function to provide every tomcat LSB script a >>>>> better way to meaure process health. Heartbeat uses this function to >>>>> get the information about resource health. >>>>> If the tomcat fails, then heartbeat restart it. That's perfect! The >>>>> problem is that in case of groups, the whole resources within a group >>>>> are restarted!!! >>>>> >>>>> To improve uptime of the different services, I would like to make them >>>>> independent. I don't want "tomcat2-tomcat8" to be restarted when >>>>> "tomcat1" fails. I just want "tomcat1" to be restarted and leave all >>>>> other resources running normally in the cluster . >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that all tomcats need to run in the same node. If I set >>>>> collocation constraints to INFINITY, then resources will not move to >>>>> the passive node in case of continous failure of a resource. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone has some advice on how to configure colocation constraints? Or >>>>> any other solution? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you very much!! >>>>> >>>>> -Abraham >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
