On Feb 19, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
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.
Thats the correct behavior (and by design actually).
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
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
