On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brice Figureau<brice...@daysofwonder.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 14:21 +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> What was the actual vs. expected behavior? > > With the following (simple) configuration on a 2 node cluster: > > primitive vip1 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 \ > params ip="172.16.10.165" nic="eth1" cidr_netmask="24" \ > op monitor interval="10s" > primitive vip2 ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 \ > params ip="172.16.10.164" nic="eth1" cidr_netmask="24" \ > op monitor interval="10s" > > There is absolutely no stickiness in this config. > vip1 and vip2 are spread one on each node automatically (which is nice). > > If I standaby node1, vip1 moves on node2, as intended, and both vip1 and > vip2 run on node2. > > Now, I add: > > colocation vip_s -100: vip2 vip1 > > When I standby node1, vip1 moves to node2, and vip2 stops. > It acts exactly as if I used a -INFINITE colocation score. > > I thought, using scores different INFINITE could be used to give some > hints to the CRM regarding placement of running resources. But in this > case, it acts as if it was a mandatory order. > > What's wrong?
There was no positive preference to begin with. As soon as a node score goes negative for a resource, its not allowed to host it. Had you given nodes a starting score of 200 for each resource, then it would have worked as you expected. (One day I need to make the node's starting score configurable) _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
