On 19 Apr 2013, at 14:48, Florian Crouzat <[email protected]> wrote:
> About move and constraints, it all goes down to a design choice, but to > me, it makes sense (for the reasons I mentioned in my first answer) and > it's documented, so ... :) > When you, as > an admin says otherwise, the cluster trusts you and create a location > constraint representing the administrative decision you just took. While I am obviously the ultimate decider of what goes where, this mechanism doesn't allow me to separate these intentions: * Move resource x to node 1 now * Move resource x to node 1 now and never allow it to come back As far as I can see only the latter is possible, if I'm to believe the "This will be the case even if node 1 is the last node in the cluster" warning. It's obviously possible to have a resource sitting a node and have no applicable location rules, and yet it stays put. Since I can create location rules that may result in implicit moves, and I can issue move commands too, it doesn't seem necessary that the two should be tied together. I think the most practical solution is to always follow a move with an unmove - though it's pretty counter-intuitive and clumsy, kind of like trying to drive a car by issuing written instructions... Marcus _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
