Hi, On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:02:55PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > I've found in the mailing-list messages the syntax I could have written > with crm configure edit , something like : > order order-g-FS inf: ( fs-A fs-B fs-C fs-D fs-E ) ( exportfs-fs-A > exportfs-fs-B exportfs-fs-C exportfs-fs-D exportfs-fs-E ) > right ? > But with my pacemaker release , crm configure edit returns a syntax error > around the first "(" > so I think it is not supported with my release 1.1.5-5 , right ?
Resource sets are supported since v1.1.1, so that should've worked. Doesn't "crm configure help order" mention sets? Thanks, Dejan > Thanks for confirmation. > Regards > Alain > > > > De : [email protected] > A : General Linux-HA mailing list <[email protected]> > Date : 27/07/2012 12:47 > Objet : Re: [Linux-HA] Antw: How to configure ordered sets of unordered > resources as described in Pacemaker doc ? > Envoyé par : [email protected] > > > > Hi, > OK for mount of FS , that's not the real thing which matters for me, > but I'm quite sure that the parallelisation of exportfs stop, when the > OCF_RESKEY_wait_for_leasetime is set, is > valuable and even quite mandatory, as I do not want to add the sleep of > the 5 exportfs even with a reduced value > for the wait_for_leastime which is 90s by default. I would like to set it > to around 10s, but in parallel for the 5 exportfs. > Without paralleization, NFS clients will for sure get timeouts before the > end of migration of the FS and exportfs resource group. > > Anyway, my question was more about the configuration of 6.6 example than > the behavior of server nfs in HA ... ;-) > > Regards > Alain > > > > De : "Ulrich Windl" <[email protected]> > A : <[email protected]> > Date : 27/07/2012 11:47 > Objet : [Linux-HA] Antw: How to configure ordered sets of unordered > resources as described in Pacemaker doc ? > Envoyé par : [email protected] > > > > Hi! > > While your idea sounds good, I doubt whether parallel mounts being tried > are actually being performed in parallel, just as the exportfs operations. > > They all access some common data structures in the kernel, I guess. In > that case, the timeout values may need adjustments. > > Despite of that some RAs may show amazing behavior if executed in parallel > > (I guess) ;-) > > Regards, > Ulrich > > >>> <[email protected]> schrieb am 27.07.2012 um 09:15 in Nachricht > <of7cf1dd89.6edcc5c6-onc1257a48.0025bf70-c1257a48.0027c...@bull.net>: > > Hi > > > > For now I had a group with several Filesystem resources followed by the > > exportfs like this : > > group g-FS-EXPORTED fs-A fs-B fs-C fs-D fs-E exportfs-fs-A > > > > exportfs-fs-B exportfs-fs-C exportfs-fs-D exportfs-fs-E \ > > > > Now, I would like to have all the FS mounted before all the exportfs BUT > > > > with sequential=false for all Filesystem primitives and sequential=false > > > > also for all exportfs primitives. > > > > I saw in the Pacemaker Configuration Explained documentation the > > Example 6.11. Ordered sets of unordered resources > > with two ressources A & B starting in parallel and before two ressources > > C > > & D starting also starting in parallel. I think this > > is exactly what I need. > > > > But : > > > > 1/ I have to remove the group configuration g-FS-EXPORTED , right ? > > or could I have such constraints "inside" the group itself ? > > (based on documentation, I don't think so) > > > > 2/ How can I enter the ordered set of unordered resources in the > > configuration ? > > (in documentation, the examples are given in xml, whereas we can't > edit > > the xml cib file, > > and in crm configure order, I can't see the way to do it : > > usage: order <id> score-type: <first-rsc>[:<action>] > > <then-rsc>[:<action>] [symmetrical=<bool>] > > > > 3/ After this configuration, that means that I can't manage the start or > > > > stop of all these resources with only one command > > as it was the case with the group ? meaning that I have to launch a > > > > start command on the 10 primitives ? instead of > > the start command on the group ? > > > > Thanks for your help on this. > > Alain > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
