Hello,
On 10/04/2010 05:36 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 04:01:50PM +0100, Matthew Richardson wrote:
> I've been playing with pacemaker for a while now, and have recently
> seena user stung by an issue I had when I first started - namely that
> colocation constraints are limited to 2 entries, unless sets are used.
>
> Thus:
>
> colocation ok inf: A B
>
> is allowed (obviously!)
>
> colocation sets_ok inf: A (B) (C)
>
> is also allowed.
>
> However:
>
> colocation not_ok inf: A B C
>
> isn't valid, though a user might expect it to be equal to the set-based
> contraint.
>
>> Hmm, last time I looked it worked. How do you know that it's not
>> valid?
I think what Matthew means is:
colocation ok inf: A B ... produces a colocation constraint A-follows-B
colocation not_ok inf: A B C ... implicitely configures a resource set
expressing C-follows-B-follows-A, which is exatly the other way round.
colocation sets_ok inf: A (B) (C) ... configures three resource sets
that behave like (as a lot of user seem to expect from the previous
example) A-follows-B-follows-C
Dejan, what are your thougts about let the shell "hide" the reversed
behavior of colocation resource sets and let this:
colocation not_ok inf: A B ( C D ) F G
... create:
<rsc_colocation id="not_ok" score="INFINITY" >
<resource_set id="collocated-set-1" sequential="true">
<resource_ref id="B"/>
<resource_ref id="A"/>
</resource_set>
<resource_set id="collocated-set-2" sequential="false">
<resource_ref id="D"/>
<resource_ref id="C"/>
</resource_set>
<resource_set id="collocated-set-3" sequential="true">
<resource_ref id="G"/>
<resource_ref id="F"/>
</resource_set>
</rsc_colocation>
... or convince Andrew to change resource sets to _not_ have the same
colocation semantics as groups ... whatever is easier ;-)
Regards,
Andreas
>
>> Thanks,
>
>> Dejan
>
> I would like to suggest 2 potential solutions to this:
>
> 1) (simple) Provide a warning/error message when someone constructs this
> invalid constraint.
>
> 2) (more complex) Translate this constraint to a meaningful set - i.e
> change 'A B C' to 'A (B) (C)'
>
> I'm not sure whether or not the 2nd option makes sense or whether it
> adds some extra level of confusion or uncertainty to its behaviour.
>
> Any comments? I'm happy to do some work to submit a patch to the shell
> to at least do the basic checking, though this might not be the best
> place (or indeed the best patch) to achieve these, if people think
> they're worthwhile suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matthew
>
>>
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
