Hi!
I think I misunderstood "colocation": I thought a colocation means if two
resources are running, the should be (or not) on the same node.
In practive however, there seems to be more:
I have two resources, say A and B. A has highter priority than B, and an
ordering that B should be started after A. As B depends on resources provided
by A, I also added a infnity colocation for A and B.
Now I'm surprised that when I tell CRM to stop B, B is stopped, but A also.
I wanted B to be more independent of A compared to putting A and B into one
group.
What did I misunderstand?
IMHO: colocation should not affect the running state of resources: If A and B
should have a infinity colocation, that constraint should be still fulfilled if
only one of both (A, B) is running. Specifically "colocation" is not a
symmetrical version of "depends_on" ("requires")
Regards,
Ulrich
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
