As far as the cluster is concerned, the desire for a resource to stay
where it is is outweighed by the negative colocation constraint saying
that it cant.
The order in which resources are allocated depends on a) the order
they occur in the configuration, b) their priority and c) how the
colocation constraints are set up.
Eg.
<rsc_colocation to="Gha2" score="-INFINITY" from="Gha1" id="CLGha1Gha2"/>
Implies that Gha2 must be allocated first (so that we know where
_not_ to put Gha1)
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 21:39, Itay Donenhirsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:10:23 +0200
>> From: "Andrew Beekhof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] nodes failover order
>>
>> can you repost your current configuration?
>
> Sure thing. See attached file generated by hb_report.
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 14:01, Itay Donenhirsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> From: "Andrew Beekhof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43, Itay Donenhirsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> First of all, thanks for the speedy reply.
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Andrew Beekhof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 15:21, Itay Donenhirsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> > I have a weird problem:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > There are 4 nodes: ha1 ha2 ha3 ha4
>>>>>> > There are 3 resource groups: Gha1 Gha2 Gha3
>>>>>> > The cluster is symmetric.
>>>>>> > Upon startup - Gha1 lives on ha2, Gha2 lives on ha3 and Gha3 lives on
>>>>>> > ha4.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I do a 'service heartbeat stop' on ha3. I expected to see Gha2 migrate
>>>>>> > from
>>>>>> > ha3 to ha1 but instead I get that Gha2 migrates to ha2 and Gha1
>>>>>> > migrates to
>>>>>> > ha1. Why is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you didnt tell it you cared.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you understood me correctly, maybe I didn't make myself
>>>>> clear enough, sorry.
>>>>> I don't want the resources to fail in a specific order, just in such a
>>>>> way that will not make non-failed resources switch nodes.
>>>>> I don't care which node gets the failed resource as long as it will be
>>>>> done in the minimal number of fail-overs.
>>>>> It seems to me that it should have worked using symmetric cluster and
>>>>> no location constraints at all.
>>>>
>>>> default-resource-stickiness
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but I don't get it. My default-resource-stickiness is
>>> INFINITY. If I understand correctly it says how much the resource
>>> "wants" to stay where it is upon fail-back. Here my problem is that a
>>> few resources change nodes. What am I missing?
>>>
>>> In the document you refereed me to there is exactly one line about
>>> default-resource-stickiness: "How much do resources prefer to stay
>>> where they are? Used when... ". In my case "where they are" is not
>>> relevant because they all move to places they never been to...
>>>
>>> But don't I seem to understand?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Itay
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
