--- On Wed, 12/3/08, Dominik Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Dominik Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As suggested in another reply, look into colocation
> constraints. If you only use primitive resources (no clones
> or master/slave resources), you could also use a group
> instead of single resources. In fact, groups are just a
> syntax shortcut for colocation constraints between all
> resources within that group, but that happens in the
> background.
I only use primitive - the following two actually:
type IPaddr2 for virtual ip and a script, both should only run on one server in
the cluster, the others are "dumb".
I looked into one example from the current documentation:
<group id=”grp_webserver”>
<primitive type=”datadisk” class=”heartbeat”>
...
</primitive>
<primitive type=”Filesystem” class=”ocf”>
...
</primitive>
<primitive type=”IPaddr2” class=”ocf”>
...
</primitive>
<primitive type=”apache” class=”ocf”>
...
</primitive>
</group>
i currently have
<resources>
<primitive id="ip_resource_1" class="ocf" type="IPaddr"
provider="heartbeat">
<instance_attributes id="inst_attr">
<attributes>
<nvpair name="ip" value="@VIRTUAL_IP@" id="vip1"/>
</attributes>
</instance_attributes>
</primitive>
<primitive id="myscript" class="heartbeat" type="myscript-haswitch"
provider="heartbeat"/>
</resources>
so when i just put <group id=”some_id”> around these primitives, it should work
out of the box? Both ressources will only always run on the same node, if that
node goes offline another node will manage both ressources again?
Thanks
>
> Regards
> Dominik
> _______________________________________________
> 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
