>>> Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> schrieb am 26.04.2013 um 03:16 in Nachricht <[email protected]>:
> On 24/04/2013, at 8:49 PM, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > I remember a complaint from my side that colocation should be symmetrical. > > Unfortunately many things are much easier to ask for than to implement. I was not mentioning this, because I hope it will be done, but instead to give people a hint how to find the discussion thread using Google, maybe. (as written below) > > > I > > guess you'll find the responses via Google. Maybe the other effects can be > > derived from the asymmetry... > > > > Regards, > > Ulrich > > > >>>> Moullé Alain<[email protected]> schrieb am 24.04.2013 um 11:41 in > > Nachricht > > <[email protected]>: > >> Hi, > >> > >> a behavior which is not clear for me : > >> > >> 1/ Let's say we have 2 nodes node1 & node2 in the HA cluster, and 3 > >> Dummy resources : resname1, resname2, resname3 > >> and the forbidden colocation set like this : > >> > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname2 -inf: resname1 resname2 > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname3 -inf: resname3 resname1 > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname1 -inf: resname2 resname1 > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname3 -inf: resname3 resname2 > >> > >> In this case, if resname1 is started on node1 and resname2 is started on > >> node2, > >> if we ask to start resname3, it does not start, and that 's seems > >> correct for me > >> because of both -inf: resname3 resname1 and -inf: resname3 resname2 > >> > >> Now, if the forbidden colocation are set like this : > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname2 -inf: resname1 resname2 > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname3 -inf: resname1 resname3 > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname1 -inf: resname2 resname1 > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname3 -inf: resname2 resname3 > >> In this case, if resname1 is started on node1 and resname2 is started on > >> node2, > >> if we ask to start resname3, it does at first stop resname1, then > >> migrate resname2 on node1, and finally start resname3 on node2 > >> > >> 2/ Another try with two Dummy resources resname1, resname2 and the > >> forbidden colocation set like this : > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname1-resname2 -inf: resname1 resname2 > >> > >> If we ask to migrate resname2 to node1 , resname2 is stopped, resname1 > >> is migrated to node2, and finally resname2 is started on node1. > >> > >> Now, the same test but with the forbidden colocation set like this : > >> colocation forbidden-coloc-resname2-resname1 -inf: resname2 resname1 > >> > >> If we ask to migrate resname2 to node1 , nothing happens, resname1 > >> remains on node1 and resname2 on node2 > >> > >> > >> So, this seems to mean that the order of the resources for a -inf: > >> collocation is important and has an impact on the behavior. > >> > >> I wonder if it is a normal behavior ? and so we have to really take in > >> account the order on -inf colocation constraints ? > >> > >> or if there is a bug around this? > >> > >> Thanks > >> 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
