On 2011-07-11T16:18:37, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
You can make collocation constraints symmetrical, and they don't need to
be at "inf:" priority. That is documented in Pacemaker Explained, and I
think quite clearly; if not, please suggest clearer language.
As a meta-comnment - you've been using our project for how long? A lot
of effort has gone into it; surely there are areas for improvement, but
you come stomping in claiming
> Your implementation mixed both, a symmetric and a non-symmetric
> relation.
> Naturally this causes problems.
The first part is wrong, the second perceived as getting ahead of
yourself. Naturally, that doesn't go down well for everyone.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
