On 11/09/2011 01:22 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote: > Hi! > > I have a question : If I have a resource group with pacemaker > (pacemaker-1.1.5-5.9.11.1 on SLES11 SP1) that has several resources, and I > set one resource to "unmanaged", the group should not be affected, right? > I also have a colocation like > colocation col_ip2 inf: prm_ip2 cln_foo:Slave > > When I set "prm_ip2" to unmanaged the clone (ms) resource cln_foo did a > promote (slave to master on node where prm_ip2 is, and a demote master to > slave on another node) action. > The idea of the colocation was to have the IP address on the node where the > slave instance of cln_foo is running. I hope the setup was fine. > > Misconfiguration or software bug?
Try using the whole group and not only the ip in the colocation constraint ... if the cluster sees no need to bind a resource to a specific node it feels free to relocate resources if scores ... or in this case promotion scores are the same. Though I am not sure if this behavior is intended for unmanaged resources in the case you described ... might be a feature ;-) Generally I suggest to use maintenance mode so you can be sure cluster does really nothing with any resource while you are doing your admin tasks. Regards, Andreas -- Need help with Pacemaker? http://www.hastexo.com/now > > Regards, > Ulrich > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
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
