On 25 Feb 2014, at 1:29 am, Tony Stocker <tony.stoc...@nasa.gov> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >> >> On 22 Feb 2014, at 2:16 am, Greg Woods <wo...@ucar.edu> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 12:37 +0000, Tony Stocker wrote: >>> >>>> colocation inf_ftpd inf: infra_group ftpd >>>> >>>> or do I need to use an 'order' statement instead, i.e.: >>>> >>>> order ftp_infra mandatory: infra_group:start ftpd >>> >>> I'm far from a leading expert on this, but in my experience, colocation >>> and order are completely separate concepts. If you want both, you have >>> to state both. So I would say you need both colocation and order >>> statements to get what you want. >> >> Exactly >> > So are is **this** what my configuration should like given that information?: > > primitive ip ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 params ip="1.2.3.4" > primitive job ocf:pps:jobfile params role="test" job="first" > primitive pwd ocf:pps:pwdfile params role="test" > primitive ftpd ocf:pps:proftpd > primitive httpd ocf:heartbeat:apache > primitive smtpd ocf:heartbeat:postfix > primitive bes ocf:pps:besServer > > group infra_group ip job pwd > > colocation inf_ftpd inf: ftpd infra_group > colocation inf_http inf: httpd infra_group > colocation inf_mail inf: smtpd infra_group > colocation inf_odap inf: bes infra_group > > order ftpd_infra mandatory: infra_group:start ftpd > order http_infra mandatory: infra_group:start httpd > order smtp_infra mandatory: infra_group:start smtpd > order odap_infra mandatory: infra_group:start bes > > > Is my syntax above correct for the situation where I need all elements of > 'infra_group' started first, and then the various other primitives started? > In other words am I correctly stating my colocation requirements? From what I recall of crmsh, it is correct > Or do I need to reverse the order, like so?: > > colocation inf_ftpd inf: infra_group ftpd > > Will the order statements ensure that the infra_group is completed startup > before starting ftpd? yes > In other words, since part of the infra_group is to set the password file, > and since the ftpd daemon depends on the existence of UID's in said password > file, the ftpd primitive is not going to start until the infra_group has > fully completed startup, correct? > > Am I allowed to separately list the pairs of colocation and order statements > as I've done above? yes > Or will that cause issues? no > > By separately stating the pairs, as opposed to creating a single line, have I > avoided creating ad hoc resource sets that I didn't explicitly define? its shouldn't matter either way. > > Thanks, > Tony > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
