Hi, On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:05:45AM +0200, Alain.Moulle wrote: > Hi , > > this is not really true when grouping about with a clone, is it ? > and if we remove the colocation configuration, I think there will be no > failover of the group1 in the case clone-fs1 disappears , right ? > > ... but I've made some progress about this and there is something > strange that experts of Pacemaker configuration will undoublty explain > to me : > I have another set of resources collocated and ordered quite the same > way, and it > does the job as I want : > > Clone Set: clone-fs-DBs > Started: [ node1 node2 ] > Resource Group: group-DBs > IPaddr-pgsqldb-server (ocf::heartbeat:IPaddr): Started node1 > res-pgsql (ocf::heartbeat:pgsql): Started node1 > > you can see that the clone is started on both nodes, and this is quite > the same configuration as for group1 and clone-fs1, I have performed > quite the same crm configuration : > crm configure colocation coloc1-psql +INFINITY: group-DBs clone-fs-DBs > crm configure order order1-postgresql mandatory: clone-fs-DBs group-DBs > > so this is quite the same configuration except that, to simplify my > previous ML > question I omitted to say that there were two clone-fs collocated and > ordered > with group1 : clone-fs1 and clone-fs2. > so in fact my colocation and order commands were : > crm configure colocation coloc1 +INFINITY: group1 clone-fs1 clone-fs2 > crm configure order order1 mandatory: clone-fs1 clone-fs2 group1 > > so you see: quite the same command as for group-DBs but with two > clone-fs instead of one > > and the behavior is not the same : > commands with only one clone-fs and a group, the clone-fs is well > started on both nodes > whatever node has started the group : > > Clone Set: clone-fs-DBs > Started: [ node1 node2 ] > Resource Group: group-DBs > IPaddr-pgsqldb-server (ocf::heartbeat:IPaddr): Started node1 > res-pgsql (ocf::heartbeat:pgsql): Started node1 > > commands with two clone-fs and a group, each clone-fs is started only on > the node where > the group is started > > Clone Set: clone-fs1 > Started: [ node1 ] > Stopped: [ fs-BCM-data:1 ] > Clone Set: clone-fs2 > Started: [ node1 ] > Stopped: [ fs-BCM-log:1 ] > Resource Group: group1 > IPaddr (ocf::heartbeat:IPaddr): Started node1 > res-nagios (lsb:nagios): Started node1 > > So as commands are the same, and crm configure show does not reveal any > difference > between both configuration, I had a look in the cib.xml and the > difference is here : > with one clone-fs, the result of collocation and order crm config > commands is : > <rsc_colocation id="coloc1-psql" rsc="group-DBs" score="+INFINITY" > with-rsc="clone-fs-DBs"/> > <rsc_order first="clone-fs-DBs" id="order1-postgresql" > score="INFINITY" then="group-DBs"/> > whereas whith two clone-fs, the result of collocation and order crm > config commands is : > <rsc_colocation id="coloc1" score="+INFINITY"> > <resource_set id="coloc1-0"> > <resource_ref id="group1"/> > <resource_ref id="clone-fs1"/> > <resource_ref id="clone-fs2"/> > </resource_set> > </rsc_colocation> > <rsc_order id="order1" score="INFINITY"> > <resource_set id="order1-0"> > <resource_ref id="clone-fs1"/> > <resource_ref id="clone-fs2"/> > <resource_ref id="group1"/> > </resource_set> > </rsc_order>
Which version do you run? If it's not a recent post 1.1.2, then clones don't work well with resource sets. Instead you can chain constraints: order o1 inf: a b order o2 inf: b c But, I guess that fs1 and fs2 are independent, right? If so, then it should be: order o1 inf: fs1 g1 order o2 inf: fs2 g1 Thanks, Dejan > In fact the behavior of the clone-fs-DBs and group-DBs seems more > logical (for me! ;-) ) as it is "clone" fs resources, > but the real question is : why the same colocation and/or order commands > leads to a different behavior, > depending if there is only 1 clone res or more than one in the > colocation and/or order crm commands ? > > Thanks > Regards > Alain > > > > > > crm configure colocation coloc1 +INFINITY: group1 clone-fs1 > > > > This says that group1 and clone-fs1 have to be on the same machine. That > > prohibits starting clone-fs1 on a machine where group1 is not running. > > That isn't what you meant. I think all you need is the order directive > > to make sure clone-fs1 is started before group1. > > > > --Greg > _______________________________________________ > 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
