On 2011-07-11 16:18, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>> Tim Serong <[email protected]> schrieb am 11.07.2011 um 15:51 in Nachricht > <[email protected]>: > [...] >> You probably want to flip the colocation constraint: >> >> colocation col_rksapr00_saprouter_ping inf: \ >> prm_rksapr00_ping grp_rksapr00 > > Yes I did that once I realized that it's directed. > > [...] >> Have a look at >> http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1/html/Pacemaker_Explained/s- >> >> resource-colocation.html >> and the following few pages. Also Colocation Explained at >> http://clusterlabs.org/wiki/Documentation. >> >> The key point being "you can't place A relative to B unless you know >> where B is", so colocation with Pacemaker necessarily involves a >> dependency. AIUI implementing fully "symmetric colocation" would mean > > Note: The "colocation explained document" is a void link in there! > > I have nothing against a dependency, but something against a "running > dependency": > > Treated symmetrically, it does not matter who is running first, A or B. Only > when the other (A or B) comes up, the colocation should be considered, either > placing the newer resource closer or further away from the other resource.
Perhaps this helps. http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.0/html/Pacemaker_Explained/ch06s04s03.html Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
