I created bug 2007 for this:
http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2007
No idea when it will get done, but at least it wont be forgotten :-)
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 14:23, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-10-30T08:48:33, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 21:31, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On 2008-10-29T17:59:03, Annette Jäkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is there a possibility to set up a group of ressources and an additional
>> >> ressource and configure an order "start additional ressource if ANY of the
>> >> group members has started"?
>> >
>> > No, there currently is not, I'm pretty sure.
>>
>> Actually... I think the new N:M colocation constraints might allow this.
>> Just a guess.
>
> Doesn't imply order though.
>
> A rsc_order M:1 with score=0 will indeed achieve a bit of this - the
> dependant resource will be started afterwards, if any of the resources
> have started. But if there's several, it will only be started after all
> of them have done so.
>
> For {M1, M2, M3} -> N, the behaviour requested would be: M1 N M2 M3, for
> example, if at least M1 has started.
>
> What M:N constraints right now would give is {M1, M2}->N.
>
> It's sort of like "interleave" with clones.
>
>
> 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
